The William episode felt like a halfway between an unhinged call on a Call-In show and a 'formal' debate opponent. What we got was a opportunity to lay out their proposition, with Matt steelmanning the position, and.... that was about it. Didn't see the point of it, and can't imagine any participant thinking they got to go 'against the end boss' in any way. I would rather a more full debate style back and forth or nothing at all. Make it a debate that you control.
The founder of islame, mupedohammad, forced himself atop of baby aisha when she was nine, and thereby leaglized pdfilia in islame *sunan abi dawud 2121* and this is so _attractive_ to atheist men that they convert to islame in droves
It might help if the guest is required to steel-man the End Boss's positions as well. One of the main issues with theological debates is that the theologian is often completely unaware of (or lying about) the atheist's position. If both sides are steel-manning positions, that is honestly more productive than any arguments and questions could possibly be by themselves.
@@Leith_Crowthernot necessarily, the challenger would just need to state accurately the argument the end boss is presenting to refute their position. For example: "So your position is that if I have no evidence beyond the bible that x happened, My position only stands if we both agree that the biblical testimony is reliable. You aren't convinced that it is any more reliable than the quaran or any other ancient religious text, and it would be unreasonable to take one of these as true and the others as false without an argument to support that choice" You know having re-written that all out several times I realise it's actually harder than it looks, it might be a bit much to ask a non-proffessional debater to do that on the spot under time pressure in front of an audience.
Its great to share your process of changing the format. The best name I've heard for changing the show would be "Steel Man". This is because there is a signifcant emphasis on the "challenger"s position and respect to them such as giving them the last word. "End Boss" would fit a show that has a more combative format. For instance, it could have 30 minutes of time where the End Boss can ask open questions and there can even be a type of "score" by the end boss or a live chat by counting the challenger's dodges and fallacies.
This has nothing to do with what Dillahunty is discussing, but, ever since he grew the beard, he looks like a cross between James Randi and Dan Dennett.
My observation is that if someone has 10 minutes and within the first 30 seconds start off with a fallacious premise, then the rest of the 9 1/2 minutes is based on a bad foundation. So you end up not wanting to listen to the rest of their points. Just my 2 cents and a comment to help your algorithm
On the ascended up side: I like that Mr. Albrecht was able to fully present his case and that his arguments were steel-maned. The down side: Even when he answered questions, it came across as a constant stream of unchallenged claims and assumptions. The new format sounds much better.
I had intended to watch all of the first show, but I hated it. My patience quickly ran out for being preached to, with no virtually no pushback. The new format sounds better, but I'm still not sure I'll watch again.
I understand why they didn’t want to allow audience members to ask follow up questions, but it led to the same dynamic on repeat. An audience member asks a poignant question, the guest gives a few extra claims to sidestep it. And then they move on to the next call in question. Maybe the reason the call in questions were so repetitive was because they were never full addressed. I’m hoping with this new format, the End Boss can revisit the call in questions that weren’t sufficiently addressed.
@@lifefindsaway7875 According to atheist prophet Mad Pedolahunty, there's nothing wrong about incest, and so, following the same logic, What is then wrong about necrophilia and cannibalism? Who exactly are harmed when pdf file atheists bone dead people then eat them? They're dead. They cannot feel pain?
I am happy to know that I wasn’t alone in being disappointed and very frustrated by the format. The notion that drove me insane was William’s repeated claim of a “no true Scotsman memory” type of fallacy - his case contained god-inspired eye witnesses so they recorded perfect memories. This is absurd yet it was never challenged. It felt as though William could just toss out claims that *never* were demonstrated or even defined (he never actually stated what exactly he thinks the idea of a physical ascension means and how literally is he making this idea and why does he think it is important for a version of Christianity). He also kept claiming there were “eye witnesses” as though they themselves were telling us their observations - of course this isn’t the case. He also made a series of claims that he seemed to think were warranted and never addressed counterclaims (such as the fact that many other traditions have stories of witnessed resurrections) or indicated he had any real knowledge of the Bible as a problematic source of “eye witness” accounts.
@@greeneyedlady5580 like... when pdf file atheists claim that men can give birth while nowhere in history has this been true, and then they indoctrinate children with this falsehood too?
Peanut gallery suggestions: 1. put up a white board on the screen, and post there your observations on the presenter's arguments as they talk. Then refer back to these in a cross-examination. 2. don't invest so much time in audience questions. it doesn't add that much. 3. maintain the steel-man portion, this is important and good, a real strength. 4. clearly identify any faulty logic in the presentation and demand those points be adressed. 5. encourage the presenter to include end comments about how they can improve their position with additional work.
I like the white board idea. I’d like to see it lay out the arguments being presented. Reid Nicewonder (Cordial Curiosity on UA-cam) has been doing this with his recent Spectrum Street Epistemology videos. I’d also like to see the challenges and responses given for all the supporting claims and arguments included on that whiteboard, and the guest could earn points for genuinely engaging with the challenges, and lose points for sidestepping them or providing fallacious counterarguments. In the End Boss section, they could revisit any call in arguments that weren’t sufficiently addressed
The audience questions may not add much to the discussion, but they are essential to the success of the show. One of the most popular features of online live streaming media is the opportunity for the audience to feel like they are part of it. That's why streamers often spend a lot of time talking to the chat. Recorded videos are more convenient than live streaming as the viewers don't have to show up at a particular time. If there is little to no audience interaction it may as well be a pre-recorded video. And remember, although The Line may not be as desperate for clicks and content as the pure debate channels Matt describes, they do still need to attract an audience of a certain size to make the show worthwhile to produce. Lots of people will log in specifically because they want to show how smart they are by asking the killer question that cuts to the heart of the matter. Even if Matt obviously thought of that question too, and could probably ask it more precisely and efficiently than the audience participation mechanism can.
@@TestTestGo fair enough. (insert witty comeback here). sadly, this is an example of being captured by the audience, in how the strategy deliberately reduces the quality of the conversation in order to earn views as an entertainment. myself, i want less entertainment and more actual work tackling the issues. which is me, and, sure, you do you, and i can find my stuff somewhere else if i need to. but, frankly, i am fond of the hosts on The Line and i want to contribute my bit in my way. no harm done if you don't agree with my peanut suggestions. didn't expect to have my ideas taken seriously, really, so nice of you to give me that long response.
@@monsterinhead214I thought that there were some strong ideas in your post, so I do hope that The Line “people” pay close attention to _some_ of the comments in the totality of the thread. I think some people (alright, _me_ 😂) had a vision of something between a conventional, albeit more extended ‘Line’ phone-in call and the more compelling and less hysterical elements that occasionally feature as gems in shows such as Modern Day Debate (which admittedly lost me VERY quickly with its complete paucity of moderation and production discipline) So what I think it missed was that indefinable quality that feels like excitement, curiosity and formidable intellect mixed with humour that occasionally makes The Line so unmistakably irresistible and occasionally figures in MDD and its ilk. Matt has these ineffable qualities in spades which is why he has to remain central to the whole shebang.
One of the recurring issues that I have seen in debates is that the debater, when presented with contrary evidence, simply goes to his next point pretending as if nothing has happened. Debates should hold them accountable to their words.
I do wish they'd stop the debate and be like, "Hey, no, answer that or admit you were wrong." Hold their feet to the fire and make sure they can't just keep bouncing around to different points - cause otherwise it feels like it's just a whole game of, 'nuh uh,' 'uh-huh,' and then by the end both sides think they won.
@@ditzydoodle8381"Answer that or admit you were wrong" Holding people accountable for the things they say is the hardest part. Shifting the goalpost is infuriating.
According to atheist religion which rejects free will and therefore any kind of personal responsibility and accountability, Why is it not evil when pdf file atheist men bone kids?
Also glad to hear about these changes. The initial format had promise, but I think the first End Boss “debate” showed exactly the problems you identified here. As always, love all you do, Matt. Keep up the awesome work.
The guest seriously believed in the jerusalem zombie story. Matt just let him preach for an hour. A good alternative is to go deep with street epistemology, like anthony magnabosco does.
My thoughts exactly. It was so incredibly frustrating to watch and listen to William ramble on and make absurd claims - like the “no true Scotsman memory” that somehow enabled the eye witness stuff reported in the Bible to be free of inaccuracy because it was god inspired - that’s only persuasive to certain believers. The zombies story was the end for me. William wasn’t challenged in any way whatsoever.
@@Nai61a But that's my point. Pdf file atheists make fun of people who have unbelievable stories in their eyes, and then, the same atheists claim that men can give birth while nowhere in history has this been true. It simply never happened.
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable What is a pdf file atheist? I've never heard that term before. It sounds like it means someone who doesn't believe pdf files exist as gods.
I’m glad it is being revised because it was dull as dull can be. As for the length, a lot of people would rather have a longer format. When it comes to a debate, in particular.
You remind me of the late and great Christopher Hitchens as far as how you are able to parse people's words and points. Hitchens was very antagonistic which was necessary in most of his debates as he often debated things he felt very strongly about, like social injustices and current issues. I enjoy listening to your debates and helping theists ponder their own thought processes. Thank you for everything you do.
Its the Hitchens part of Matt that I like the most, irrespective if Matt himself doesn't like that. Hitchens was able to show the absurdity of these outdated beliefs, and the abhorrent actions based off those beliefs. Matt tends to be open to the supposed valid reason to believe, but thankfully informs theists (usually not always) that their beliefs are not reasonable and should be immediately stopped.
I think the most important thing in these debates is a competent moderator. Even if your opponent is speaking over you or speaking about the wrong topics- the moderator would put them back on track
I recently re-watched your "debate" with Jordan Peterson, from years ago, and I think that he wouldn't have qualified for an "End Boss" debate. JP was really not capable of ever conceding any of his positions that were flawed. His lack of understanding of logical fallacies was annoyingly apparent.
@@justingary5322 If that's the case did JP reflect on it then admit what the situation really was, then apologize for the horrid mistake of speaking on important issues in public while intoxicated. And finally did he then schedule another event with Matt to set the record straight ? It seems that's what an honorable and honest person would do.
Hey Matt I’ve been following you since I’ve seen you in The Atheist Experience a few years back and now you’re on a different channel/network The Line and those 2 networks have helped me with coming to my senses and to rely on critical thinking than just faith and so then that’s when my deconstructing began and I’m 24 now and I realized that religion just made my life hell growing up and as soon as I detached from that mentality I began to be truly free and stopped fearing about going to hell and shit like that.
I have enjoyed your content and the quality of your debate styles over the decades Matt. Your rigorous attention to details and staying on topic is always amazing, especially when handling the many whack-a-mole interlocutors that you have had over the years. From an Irish fan, keep it up Mr Dillahunty. Oh yeah, and "END BOSS" will definitely appeal to the ad hominem brigade who consider the debate secondary to their primary purpose.
Thank goodness someone (or a group) have come to their senses that longer sessions are not better than a short session. I appreciate your attempt to create a new timing system, even if it needs to be tweaked. Having opponents that are respectful is imperative, else I know I cease to be interested. I wish I had the skills and communication capabilities to challenge you, Matt, but it's not my skill set. And so I'll remain a listener who often enjoys hearing the eloquent counter arguments.
How much more ground is left to be covered debating theists? It's the same tired old arguments that boil down to incredulity, faith, uncaused cause, x amount of people couldn't all be lying. Are there plans to have debates on things that are perhaps about specific moral issues or political issues? Side note: can you force the opponent to concede points if they have an inadequate response in order to move on? Tired of debaters basically going "we can agree to disagree."
I understand your frustration. The problem is that apologists rarely bring anything new to the table, they just recycle the same arguments that have already been debunked centuries ago. It's rare to hear an apologist acknowledge that certain religious arguments are really bad. There oftens seems to be no filter what arguments the apologists takes on, they just embrace all of them and never throw any away. It might be a good idea to ask the apologists "What (popular) arguments for your religion do you find unconvincing? Why?" With this you can atleast roughly gauge what the standards are from the person you are speaking with. Do they agree with all popular arguments, or do they acknowledge that some of them are terrible and shouldn't be used anymore?
It is not a debate and should not be advertised as such. It is a platform for people to express their views unchallenged. The only so-called debate I have watched. You actually tried to stealman their arguments. Perhaps that is the point of End Boss. You are trying to school people in the art of debate. When you start with a very weak premise, it doesn’t matter how skilled you are at debating, you will end up flat on your face every time. 😂
Format: 10:00 minutes of the contestant's opening argument 10:00 minutes of the End Boss's opening counter-argument 10:00 minutes of cross examination of contestant by End Boss 10:00 minutes of questions from chats/superchats 3:00 minutes of steel-manning contestant's position 5:00 minutes of contestant's closing argument 5:00 minutes of End Boss's closing argument 2: 00 minutes of rebuttal by contestant if they want it 5:00 minutes of announcements of next shows/closing remarks/wrap up End Boss not to be confused w/ the Final Boss the Rock! 😛
It might be a good idea to close the debate with "Have you changed your view on anything we discussed?". This might be a litmus test for measuring how honest and charitable your interlocutors are. The ones that answer with "no, I haven't learned anything new or changed any of my views" might be truthful, but this response also shows that they have very little self awareness or humility. The change doesn't have to be huge or even related to their beliefs, it could also be related to how they argued for their position. If someone has a debate with another person for an hour and they didn't learn anything new from it or change any of their views, why should people care what they have to say?
To be fair, when I listen to the same apologetics we've heard again and again and claims without evidence, my view not changing in the slightest is a you problem, not a me problem. We can't expect something different from the other side. And if you say your view would change slightly based on William's performance I would be very disappointed.
@@dyerseve3001 I somewhat agree with you. After listening to numerous religious conversations and debates for the last decade I can't say I am learning new stuff every single time. This mostly has to do with the fact that many apologist arguments are recycled, carbon copies of eachother. I rarely feel that the apologist (or your average religious person) came up with that argument themselves, they are just regurgitating what they heard from other people. This is why I think it's important for people to present original arguments, not just blindly repeat a popular one. Atheists can also fall for this lazy trap. People need to phrase things in their own words and not solely rely on others to make their arguments for them. This is where the learning can happen, because people are actually thinking for themselves and are also presenting new ideas. We're not going to learn anything when we hear an apologist present the fallacious Kalam argument or Pascal's Wager for the 1000th time. I do think there is value that people only participate in a debate if they actually have something new to bring to the table, not just present the "Best Hits" of a certain argument. Otherwise you are just consuming the debate on autopilot mode, without much thought or introspection.
One of the frustrating things about public debates is the talking around each other by the debaters, and the consequent repeating. This is due to each debater desiring to win the debate and control the paradigm in which the arguments are made. Each side knows that if they stick to the viewpoint that allows them to reach their conclusion, and to use their prepared statements it gives them an advantage. This is like watching two fencers duelling it out but at no point actually touching swords. A genuinely interesting debate is only possible if at least one side is prepared to take the risk of losing.
Tons of excellent ideas suggested already here. I admire your willingness to be open to constructive criticism, and I hope that Endboss iterates until it becomes a banger!
That episode's problem was everyone asking the same obvious question. Jimmy, if possible, take in 5 prepaid callers that are instructed to have 3 questions to choose from when called upon. Those questions may change over the exchange. It doesn't even have to be official, just suggested. If none are in the line up, take others who didn't prepay. If their question was addressed, you politely ask for another prepared question. If they can't provide on, move on.
I wonder if Matt/ The Line would accept a debate topic where one of the participants didn't necessarily believe their position, was using traditional debate strategy to defend a position well, even if they didn't themselves hold that position internally?
I think it will be difficult to find those reasonable theists to debate with. Whilst I agree you should look up the person, their outdated beliefs can and do cause bad actions of them. Its called a strawman to bring up things about people (that aren't in debate) just so to knock them down. But the fact remains these theists you tend to justify debating with DO have absurd beliefs that we should not thank them by or respect those beliefs. We shouldn't lose sight on the fact that their beliefs are unwarranted AND unwelcome in modern society.
My problem with multi-hour videos isn't that I can't pay attention for so much time. It's that I simply don't _have_ that kind of time, or only rarely - so I am extremely selective in watching those. That aside, I'm not a fan of formal debates for a whole host of reasons. I prefer variants where both sides have time to look over the responses and research their own response, and then take however long it takes for it, which these days usually means every response is a separate video or blog post with days in between.
Your debate with Than was so engaging, and the format was a good length - even if those things were, in large part, due to Than being a respectful and honest debate opponent. The best part to me was the "cross examination" section. I'd love to see a debate format using this whole steelmanning idea after the opening arguments, and then plenty of back and forth after that.
Driven by love for his King and passion for the church, Than Christopoulos seeks to bring people closer to Jesus. Is that respectful and honest way of life? Or is it disrespectful and deceptive?
@@kimsland999 it is living his life based on a lie. Than has undoubtedly been lied to all of his life, and hasn't stopped and applied critical thinking to the claims of his church. Therefore, based on those lies, he's trying to convince others to also live their lives based on those lies. Whether or not it's international, he'd trying to convince people to believe lies, so what does that make him? At best, gullible.
@@greeneyedlady5580 I agree, but when is an adult (especially with Matt himself helping him) responsible for their outdated beliefs? In other words, whilst originally the men of the church were likely at fault > now he is.
@@kimsland999 The key question being living a lie or not; I gather it comes down to the person’s character thus choice to either go for the explanations found appealing or those revealing the harsh world we live in. Blatantly citing Matt, you believe what you’re convinced of, not what you choose to and can become convinced for good or for bad reasons. Having said that, you can also be educated for better or for worse, depending solely on the level of knowledge and especially the agenda of the one educating you. Eventually it’s up to you to reconsider whether the information you receive relies on actual facts about reality or a subjectively accepted ideology, as respective are rarely if ever mutually inclusive, however fervently interpretations of the latter are being massaged into the former to suite an alternative worldview desperately held. Ultimately, it’s always and unexceptionally your own responsibility to be critical enough to be able to distinguish between the two alternatives and make the decision whether you want to redistribute possibly unmonitored information or not. Whichever, at the end of the day it’s your credibility and honour at stake. Ending my tirade on a but slightly lighter note - by experience unfortunately sparsely dispensed in conversations alike: it’s obvious the primary reason believers uphold their not only on personal preference but also admittedly by definition on unrealistic expectations based belief, is that they want the thing they believe in to be true. The quintessential question to ask them is why they in particular want it to be true. The answer given still doesn’t illuminate anything about the thing they believe in but that much more about themselves, irrespective founding their reasons in claimed altruism or veiled egotism.
@@patriklindholm7576 " _Blatantly citing Matt, you believe what you’re convinced of, not what you choose to and can become convinced for good or for bad reasons_ " Negative, you're wrong. A true sceptic will question others AND their own beliefs. Therefore being convinced is irrelevant. With all your words its shocking you didn't think of that.
Yeah, I didn't like the End Boss. It was like a game show. I prefer a regular debate, but without the opening diatribes and without both speaking taking their turned. Go directly to the debate discussion. And if they end with audience questions, give the audience members a GOOD MICROPHONE.
Here's what I expected from an end boss: 1.Someone providing their arguments/position. 2. The end boss steelmanning the position (clarification until there is agreement on the position) 3. Agreement or rebuttal from the end boss based on that position. I.e. the best arguments against the steelmanned position. 4. Response to those challenges by the applicant. 5. Conclusion of the end boss (including any final assessment of the responses) 6. Final words from the applicant. See how I didn't mention audience question? If you want smaller and more focused, keep the audience out of it. See how I didn't add cross examination by the end boss? If you want smaller and more focused, the cross-examination should be shelved. See how I didn't add the timeframes? The adherence of self imposed timeframes removed any free or natural flow.
I would love to see this format promulgated!!! The last debate was the one on Islam, if he said 1400 or bless his holy name, my brain turned to worm pudding. Most theists use these debates to preach their dogma. I intend to fill out that form and ask a simple question.” How did it (god) create the cosmos and the Googleplexian(a number followed by 100 zeros)GALAXIES???
Can't wait to see some of these debates. There have been many callers claiming to be able to prove god if they had more time. Here's their chance...if they were being honest (big IF). Also, I really want to see an hour long video of Matt doing all the magic woo rituals that people have told him to do in order to get a response from god.
The problem with the end boss, is that you should take on the challenge at the end of the game, when you are levelled up and have all the powerful weapons and gadgets.
Debates are pointless...but given the constraints of how homo sapiens dialogue, they're pretty much unavoidable. I imagine that the percentage of people that undergo significant cognitive shifts, after listening to someone presenting contrarian opinions, has to be comparatively miniscule.
I'm a Christian but End Boss debate format would be awesome 😎. Christians and people of other religions getting along with Atheists agnostics and secular humanists is a world I'd love to see
Sorry, but as long as you keep supporting the nonsense (both ideas and people) you do, I can’t really get along with you, as you are diametrically opposed to the world and society I want to live in.
End boss is still not a great name for the non-combative debate you're looking for. I like the idea of an expert having a discussion with someone who is maybe less informed on a topic, that seems more like an end boss, but it's not a debate then. It sounds like the end boss is a debater, time keeper and moderator rolled into one. There should be a moderator to keep both sides on topic, but it becomes hard to find an impartial moderator that won't turn it into a two on one. The whole thing is too short, 90-120 minutes is better, i like that idea. Of all the dumpster fire MDD I've seen, i tend to enjoy the open discussion sections the most, where claims can be immediately jumped on before it turns into a gish gallop or preaching. Audience questions are worthless, but i understand its the best way to monetize. I look forward to hearing some great topics (abortion, ghosts, aliens, religions) but please no more flat earth, there are no good interlocutors in that camp. My two cents, at least.
On an intellectual level I kinda understand what you are doing, but I also wonder why are you giving any kind of air time to the largest cult on earth that has destroyed so many lives ?
You need like a boxing referee Not as much of taking turns as it is letting the conversation flow naturally without either party steamrolling the other
Hi Matt, I wondered what your thoughts on Deism, or perhaps even more, Jungian views on Christianity are (although these are quite different). I understand the notion that these things are essentially to close to some form of agnosticism or atheism to be regarded as genuinely religious, but at the same time I see that in your debate with Jordan Peterson that his arguments were more based in Jungian thought than genuine belief in the literal truth of the Bible. [According to Jungian training analyst Murray B. Stein, Jung related theological and psychological constructs using three tenets: Theological elements (such as God) can be interpreted to refer to psychological concepts. Psychologists can evaluate the adequacy of theological constructs against the dynamics of the psyche. Words about the psyche are also words about God, due to the correspondence between subjectivity and objectivity.] Although he had a lot more to say than just that, and not all of it is free from criticism, I see from this that the link between these concepts and Peterson's description of Biblical narrative are quite similar, and I wondered, If you respond, what your thoughts are on this. Not as a religious view to be replaced by better explanations but perhaps as a more modern interpretation of the narrative, which I personally see as a benefit to the body of thought as a whole. I suppose in that sense I'm more in favour of the Jefferson Bible, and I wondered if you viewed the whole enterprise as a waste (deist-adjacent philosophy) or as something that might detract from rationality, or if you saw It as perhaps a more rational view of the life of Jesus as a lesson.
Deism is untenable. A god that doesn't interact with reality in a detectable way... isn't detectable. I don't care about Jungian metaphorical gods...I care about ones that are claimed to be real.
Hi Matt, I was hoping you could help me with something: which are the best books out there that you know of that help people sharpen their logic and to be more logical during arguments? That would really help.
WLC refuses to debate Matt on the fallacious excuse that Matt doesn’t have a degree. WLC knows he won’t get away with his usual sophistry so he’s scared.
I'm glad you weren't being personally attacked during this "debate", but I have to be honest, I couldn't even watch the whole thing. One of the things I've always liked about your debates is that they're entertaining. This just felt too much like a sermon to me and was dull. It's an interesting concept, but not one that I'll watch
"Driven by love for his King and passion for the church, Than Christopoulos seeks to bring people closer to Jesus." Is that respectful and honest way of life? Or is it disrespectful and deceptive?
Matt “Bowser” Dillahunty 😂 Audience questions need to be qualified. They should be required to present something factual/ strongly probable and relevant as a matter of either steelmanning or debunking specific aspects of an argument.
@@SansDeity Matt will meet the Lord Jesus,,,Matt will die,,it's appointed for us once to die then Judgment !!,absent from the body is present with the Lord,,you will bow,,and you will confess,,it's a fact,,GOD SAID SO,,AND YOU CANT STOP HIM !! GOD IS VICTORIOUS,evidence for matt
@SansDeity Matt wants evidence of God ? Matt here is the evidence,,God said Matt dillahunty Will die,,absent from the body is present with the Lord,,it's appointed for us once to die matt,,then Judgment,,,you have the evidence,,now you have 2 options ,,except the unearned free gift,BY BELIEVING,,OR don't except the gift,,AND THE SMOKE OF YOUR TORMENT WILL GO UP FOREVER AND EVER,,GOD SAID SO,,,ITS EVERLASTING FIRE FROM GOD,,,,OR EVERLASTING LIFE ? YOUR CHOICE,,ITS NOT GODS WILL THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH !! HE MADE IT SUPER EASY,TERMINATING THE OLD COVENANT, ,AND BRINGING IN THE EASY NEW LIVING WAY !!,,THE NEW COVENANT WORLD HAS NO END,,ALL WHO BELIEVE THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL ARE BLESSED
I’m glad that End Boss is getting revised. The concept is sound, it just needs fixing…. but it definitely does need fixing.
So does your face.
@@mattpeters4700I’m not bothered by the insults of children.
@@Leith_Crowther soo arrogance is your stile...
@@Leith_Crowther Lol I was jus playin'
@@pub652So, poor grammar is your *style.
The William episode felt like a halfway between an unhinged call on a Call-In show and a 'formal' debate opponent. What we got was a opportunity to lay out their proposition, with Matt steelmanning the position, and.... that was about it. Didn't see the point of it, and can't imagine any participant thinking they got to go 'against the end boss' in any way. I would rather a more full debate style back and forth or nothing at all. Make it a debate that you control.
The founder of islame, mupedohammad, forced himself atop of baby aisha when she was nine, and thereby leaglized pdfilia in islame *sunan abi dawud 2121*
and this is so _attractive_ to atheist men that they convert to islame in droves
It might help if the guest is required to steel-man the End Boss's positions as well. One of the main issues with theological debates is that the theologian is often completely unaware of (or lying about) the atheist's position. If both sides are steel-manning positions, that is honestly more productive than any arguments and questions could possibly be by themselves.
That would require the end boss to be defending a position, which sounds bad for the concept. That’s just a normal debate.
Amen.
THis.
I mean yeah 👍
Also THIS.
@@Leith_Crowthernot necessarily, the challenger would just need to state accurately the argument the end boss is presenting to refute their position. For example:
"So your position is that if I have no evidence beyond the bible that x happened, My position only stands if we both agree that the biblical testimony is reliable. You aren't convinced that it is any more reliable than the quaran or any other ancient religious text, and it would be unreasonable to take one of these as true and the others as false without an argument to support that choice"
You know having re-written that all out several times I realise it's actually harder than it looks, it might be a bit much to ask a non-proffessional debater to do that on the spot under time pressure in front of an audience.
Its great to share your process of changing the format. The best name I've heard for changing the show would be "Steel Man". This is because there is a signifcant emphasis on the "challenger"s position and respect to them such as giving them the last word. "End Boss" would fit a show that has a more combative format. For instance, it could have 30 minutes of time where the End Boss can ask open questions and there can even be a type of "score" by the end boss or a live chat by counting the challenger's dodges and fallacies.
Isn't Steel Man his girlfriend's name?
Steel Man actually makes a lot of sense as a show title.
@@theepsteindiaries
Matt has hurt you deeply😊
@@theepsteindiaries Jealous much? Poor baby.
This has nothing to do with what Dillahunty is discussing, but, ever since he grew the beard, he looks like a cross between James Randi and Dan Dennett.
Matt seems happier. Like it.
He wasn't too happy when he ran away from Andrew Wilson. Big beard clown cowboy!
My observation is that if someone has 10 minutes and within the first 30 seconds start off with a fallacious premise, then the rest of the 9 1/2 minutes is based on a bad foundation. So you end up not wanting to listen to the rest of their points. Just my 2 cents and a comment to help your algorithm
On the ascended up side: I like that Mr. Albrecht was able to fully present his case and that his arguments were steel-maned. The down side: Even when he answered questions, it came across as a constant stream of unchallenged claims and assumptions. The new format sounds much better.
I had intended to watch all of the first show, but I hated it. My patience quickly ran out for being preached to, with no virtually no pushback. The new format sounds better, but I'm still not sure I'll watch again.
I understand why they didn’t want to allow audience members to ask follow up questions, but it led to the same dynamic on repeat.
An audience member asks a poignant question, the guest gives a few extra claims to sidestep it. And then they move on to the next call in question.
Maybe the reason the call in questions were so repetitive was because they were never full addressed.
I’m hoping with this new format, the End Boss can revisit the call in questions that weren’t sufficiently addressed.
@@lifefindsaway7875 According to atheist prophet Mad Pedolahunty, there's nothing wrong about incest, and so, following the same logic, What is then wrong about necrophilia and cannibalism?
Who exactly are harmed when pdf file atheists bone dead people then eat them? They're dead. They cannot feel pain?
I am happy to know that I wasn’t alone in being disappointed and very frustrated by the format. The notion that drove me insane was William’s repeated claim of a “no true Scotsman memory” type of fallacy - his case contained god-inspired eye witnesses so they recorded perfect memories. This is absurd yet it was never challenged. It felt as though William could just toss out claims that *never* were demonstrated or even defined (he never actually stated what exactly he thinks the idea of a physical ascension means and how literally is he making this idea and why does he think it is important for a version of Christianity). He also kept claiming there were “eye witnesses” as though they themselves were telling us their observations - of course this isn’t the case. He also made a series of claims that he seemed to think were warranted and never addressed counterclaims (such as the fact that many other traditions have stories of witnessed resurrections) or indicated he had any real knowledge of the Bible as a problematic source of “eye witness” accounts.
@@greeneyedlady5580 like... when pdf file atheists claim that men can give birth while nowhere in history has this been true, and then they indoctrinate children with this falsehood too?
Peanut gallery suggestions: 1. put up a white board on the screen, and post there your observations on the presenter's arguments as they talk. Then refer back to these in a cross-examination. 2. don't invest so much time in audience questions. it doesn't add that much. 3. maintain the steel-man portion, this is important and good, a real strength. 4. clearly identify any faulty logic in the presentation and demand those points be adressed. 5. encourage the presenter to include end comments about how they can improve their position with additional work.
I agree that audience questions are usually useless. Hence the need to be vetted. Two or three audience questions max.
I like the white board idea. I’d like to see it lay out the arguments being presented.
Reid Nicewonder (Cordial Curiosity on UA-cam) has been doing this with his recent Spectrum Street Epistemology videos.
I’d also like to see the challenges and responses given for all the supporting claims and arguments included on that whiteboard, and the guest could earn points for genuinely engaging with the challenges, and lose points for sidestepping them or providing fallacious counterarguments.
In the End Boss section, they could revisit any call in arguments that weren’t sufficiently addressed
The audience questions may not add much to the discussion, but they are essential to the success of the show. One of the most popular features of online live streaming media is the opportunity for the audience to feel like they are part of it. That's why streamers often spend a lot of time talking to the chat.
Recorded videos are more convenient than live streaming as the viewers don't have to show up at a particular time. If there is little to no audience interaction it may as well be a pre-recorded video.
And remember, although The Line may not be as desperate for clicks and content as the pure debate channels Matt describes, they do still need to attract an audience of a certain size to make the show worthwhile to produce.
Lots of people will log in specifically because they want to show how smart they are by asking the killer question that cuts to the heart of the matter. Even if Matt obviously thought of that question too, and could probably ask it more precisely and efficiently than the audience participation mechanism can.
@@TestTestGo fair enough. (insert witty comeback here). sadly, this is an example of being captured by the audience, in how the strategy deliberately reduces the quality of the conversation in order to earn views as an entertainment. myself, i want less entertainment and more actual work tackling the issues. which is me, and, sure, you do you, and i can find my stuff somewhere else if i need to. but, frankly, i am fond of the hosts on The Line and i want to contribute my bit in my way. no harm done if you don't agree with my peanut suggestions. didn't expect to have my ideas taken seriously, really, so nice of you to give me that long response.
@@monsterinhead214I thought that there were some strong ideas in your post, so I do hope that The Line “people” pay close attention to _some_ of the comments in the totality of the thread. I think some people (alright, _me_ 😂) had a vision of something between a conventional, albeit more extended ‘Line’ phone-in call and the more compelling and less hysterical elements that occasionally feature as gems in shows such as Modern Day Debate (which admittedly lost me VERY quickly with its complete paucity of moderation and production discipline)
So what I think it missed was that indefinable quality that feels like excitement, curiosity and formidable intellect mixed with humour that occasionally makes The Line so unmistakably irresistible and occasionally figures in MDD and its ilk. Matt has these ineffable qualities in spades which is why he has to remain central to the whole shebang.
One of the recurring issues that I have seen in debates is that the debater, when presented with contrary evidence, simply goes to his next point pretending as if nothing has happened. Debates should hold them accountable to their words.
That or they just restate it
I do wish they'd stop the debate and be like, "Hey, no, answer that or admit you were wrong." Hold their feet to the fire and make sure they can't just keep bouncing around to different points - cause otherwise it feels like it's just a whole game of, 'nuh uh,' 'uh-huh,' and then by the end both sides think they won.
@@ditzydoodle8381"Answer that or admit you were wrong"
Holding people accountable for the things they say is the hardest part. Shifting the goalpost is infuriating.
@@ditzydoodle8381 According to atheist religion, What is wrong about slavery?
Should we ask stalin?
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable The veil of ignorance. Next question.
Matt has gone full Socrates
Going full Socrates involves drinking hemlock.
Come on, man.
@@YawnGodand hanging a sandal on the door...
According to atheist religion which rejects free will and therefore any kind of personal responsibility and accountability, Why is it not evil when pdf file atheist men bone kids?
Not entirely just the beard
@@justingary5322 According to atheist religion, What is wrong about torture?
Should we ask lenin?
Also glad to hear about these changes. The initial format had promise, but I think the first End Boss “debate” showed exactly the problems you identified here.
As always, love all you do, Matt. Keep up the awesome work.
The guest seriously believed in the jerusalem zombie story. Matt just let him preach for an hour. A good alternative is to go deep with street epistemology, like anthony magnabosco does.
My thoughts exactly. It was so incredibly frustrating to watch and listen to William ramble on and make absurd claims - like the “no true Scotsman memory” that somehow enabled the eye witness stuff reported in the Bible to be free of inaccuracy because it was god inspired - that’s only persuasive to certain believers. The zombies story was the end for me. William wasn’t challenged in any way whatsoever.
@@4Mr.Crowley2 absurd? uhm. like, when pdf file atheists claim that men can give birth and nowhere in history has this been true?
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable If you are going to troll here, you will have to do better. Much better.
@@Nai61a But that's my point. Pdf file atheists make fun of people who have unbelievable stories in their eyes, and then, the same atheists claim that men can give birth while nowhere in history has this been true. It simply never happened.
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable What is a pdf file atheist? I've never heard that term before. It sounds like it means someone who doesn't believe pdf files exist as gods.
I’m glad it is being revised because it was dull as dull can be.
As for the length, a lot of people would rather have a longer format. When it comes to a debate, in particular.
You remind me of the late and great Christopher Hitchens as far as how you are able to parse people's words and points. Hitchens was very antagonistic which was necessary in most of his debates as he often debated things he felt very strongly about, like social injustices and current issues. I enjoy listening to your debates and helping theists ponder their own thought processes. Thank you for everything you do.
Its the Hitchens part of Matt that I like the most, irrespective if Matt himself doesn't like that.
Hitchens was able to show the absurdity of these outdated beliefs, and the abhorrent actions based off those beliefs. Matt tends to be open to the supposed valid reason to believe, but thankfully informs theists (usually not always) that their beliefs are not reasonable and should be immediately stopped.
@@kimsland999 Absurdity of what outdated beliefs?
@@justingary5322 I dunno, maybe the defense of slavery, homophobia, racism, sexism or the myriad of scientific errors present in these holy books.
chris hitchens was a commie, but no surprise there since atheist religion is a communist religion too
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppableI hope you realize your insecure attempts to antagonize only make you look ignorant and fragile. You need to do better.
I think the most important thing in these debates is a competent moderator. Even if your opponent is speaking over you or speaking about the wrong topics- the moderator would put them back on track
Quick reminder to turn on your notification preferences to "all," everyone!
We all know these videos are worth being notified for.
I recently re-watched your "debate" with Jordan Peterson, from years ago, and I think that he wouldn't have qualified for an "End Boss" debate. JP was really not capable of ever conceding any of his positions that were flawed. His lack of understanding of logical fallacies was annoyingly apparent.
Not exactly he was on medication which severely affected his judgement.
@@justingary5322what medication makes you a condescending, fallacious douchbag?
@@justingary5322
If that's the case did JP reflect on it then admit what the situation really was, then apologize for the horrid mistake of speaking on important issues in public while intoxicated.
And finally did he then schedule another event with Matt to set the record straight ?
It seems that's what an honorable and honest person would do.
@@justingary5322so he is on heavy medication his whole life??? Obviously!
@@justingary5322Sounds like we have a JP apologist here...
Matt slowly turning into James Randi.
Hey Matt I’ve been following you since I’ve seen you in The Atheist Experience a few years back and now you’re on a different channel/network The Line and those 2 networks have helped me with coming to my senses and to rely on critical thinking than just faith and so then that’s when my deconstructing began and I’m 24 now and I realized that religion just made my life hell growing up and as soon as I detached from that mentality I began to be truly free and stopped fearing about going to hell and shit like that.
I have enjoyed your content and the quality of your debate styles over the decades Matt. Your rigorous attention to details and staying on topic is always amazing, especially when handling the many whack-a-mole interlocutors that you have had over the years. From an Irish fan, keep it up Mr Dillahunty.
Oh yeah, and "END BOSS" will definitely appeal to the ad hominem brigade who consider the debate secondary to their primary purpose.
I’m amused to no end watching you tell us how the sausage is made. Absolutely charmed. ❤
So great to hear such a reasonable, intelligent discussion. Not always easy on social media. The nonsense gets millions of views in many instances.
I think it might surprise people how much appreciation there is for longer formatted content rather than short bite size bits, even nowadays.
Very much so.
Thank goodness someone (or a group) have come to their senses that longer sessions are not better than a short session.
I appreciate your attempt to create a new timing system, even if it needs to be tweaked.
Having opponents that are respectful is imperative, else I know I cease to be interested.
I wish I had the skills and communication capabilities to challenge you, Matt, but it's not my skill set. And so I'll remain a listener who often enjoys hearing the eloquent counter arguments.
How much more ground is left to be covered debating theists? It's the same tired old arguments that boil down to incredulity, faith, uncaused cause, x amount of people couldn't all be lying. Are there plans to have debates on things that are perhaps about specific moral issues or political issues?
Side note: can you force the opponent to concede points if they have an inadequate response in order to move on? Tired of debaters basically going "we can agree to disagree."
We’re not still debating theists because they have lots of arguments, we’re debating theists because they have lots of followers.
I understand your frustration. The problem is that apologists rarely bring anything new to the table, they just recycle the same arguments that have already been debunked centuries ago.
It's rare to hear an apologist acknowledge that certain religious arguments are really bad. There oftens seems to be no filter what arguments the apologists takes on, they just embrace all of them and never throw any away.
It might be a good idea to ask the apologists "What (popular) arguments for your religion do you find unconvincing? Why?"
With this you can atleast roughly gauge what the standards are from the person you are speaking with. Do they agree with all popular arguments, or do they acknowledge that some of them are terrible and shouldn't be used anymore?
Make sure the case for the initial proposition by the guest does NOT use arguments from their holy book.
Raise the level of debate.
I had a feeling an hour wouldn't be enough. 90 minutes is definitely better.
90 minutes is the way to go.
Yes!! This is what i was looking for! Great idea
It is not a debate and should not be advertised as such. It is a platform for people to express their views unchallenged. The only so-called debate I have watched. You actually tried to stealman their arguments. Perhaps that is the point of End Boss. You are trying to school people in the art of debate. When you start with a very weak premise, it doesn’t matter how skilled you are at debating, you will end up flat on your face every time. 😂
Format:
10:00 minutes of the contestant's opening argument
10:00 minutes of the End Boss's opening counter-argument
10:00 minutes of cross examination of contestant by End Boss
10:00 minutes of questions from chats/superchats
3:00 minutes of steel-manning contestant's position
5:00 minutes of contestant's closing argument
5:00 minutes of End Boss's closing argument
2: 00 minutes of rebuttal by contestant if they want it
5:00 minutes of announcements of next shows/closing remarks/wrap up
End Boss not to be confused w/ the Final Boss the Rock! 😛
Nice beard, Matt.
In not convinced. Don't get me wrong, everyone can do as they like. But I'm wondering if Matt is preparing to be the next Santa Clause movie.
@@drooten
You're not convinced another Santa movie is coming soon ?
The Blasphemy !!!
Thanks for listening to the feedback! I hope the new format is more engaging!
Looking forward to it.
Thanks Matt! Really appreciate you. Hope you are well.
It might be a good idea to close the debate with "Have you changed your view on anything we discussed?". This might be a litmus test for measuring how honest and charitable your interlocutors are.
The ones that answer with "no, I haven't learned anything new or changed any of my views" might be truthful, but this response also shows that they have very little self awareness or humility. The change doesn't have to be huge or even related to their beliefs, it could also be related to how they argued for their position.
If someone has a debate with another person for an hour and they didn't learn anything new from it or change any of their views, why should people care what they have to say?
To be fair, when I listen to the same apologetics we've heard again and again and claims without evidence, my view not changing in the slightest is a you problem, not a me problem. We can't expect something different from the other side. And if you say your view would change slightly based on William's performance I would be very disappointed.
@@dyerseve3001 I somewhat agree with you. After listening to numerous religious conversations and debates for the last decade I can't say I am learning new stuff every single time.
This mostly has to do with the fact that many apologist arguments are recycled, carbon copies of eachother. I rarely feel that the apologist (or your average religious person) came up with that argument themselves, they are just regurgitating what they heard from other people. This is why I think it's important for people to present original arguments, not just blindly repeat a popular one. Atheists can also fall for this lazy trap.
People need to phrase things in their own words and not solely rely on others to make their arguments for them. This is where the learning can happen, because people are actually thinking for themselves and are also presenting new ideas. We're not going to learn anything when we hear an apologist present the fallacious Kalam argument or Pascal's Wager for the 1000th time.
I do think there is value that people only participate in a debate if they actually have something new to bring to the table, not just present the "Best Hits" of a certain argument. Otherwise you are just consuming the debate on autopilot mode, without much thought or introspection.
Loving the beard Matt, you’ve nearly achieved wizard status.
One of the frustrating things about public debates is the talking around each other by the debaters, and the consequent repeating. This is due to each debater desiring to win the debate and control the paradigm in which the arguments are made. Each side knows that if they stick to the viewpoint that allows them to reach their conclusion, and to use their prepared statements it gives them an advantage. This is like watching two fencers duelling it out but at no point actually touching swords. A genuinely interesting debate is only possible if at least one side is prepared to take the risk of losing.
Tons of excellent ideas suggested already here. I admire your willingness to be open to constructive criticism, and I hope that Endboss iterates until it becomes a banger!
That episode's problem was everyone asking the same obvious question. Jimmy, if possible, take in 5 prepaid callers that are instructed to have 3 questions to choose from when called upon. Those questions may change over the exchange. It doesn't even have to be official, just suggested. If none are in the line up, take others who didn't prepay. If their question was addressed, you politely ask for another prepared question. If they can't provide on, move on.
I wonder if Matt/ The Line would accept a debate topic where one of the participants didn't necessarily believe their position, was using traditional debate strategy to defend a position well, even if they didn't themselves hold that position internally?
As an atheist, I want freedom from religion. Why not explore atheism? Arguments with Bible thumpers are a waste of time.
Explore in what way?
Saving people from delusional and teaching people critical thinking and skepticism is the way.
I think it will be difficult to find those reasonable theists to debate with.
Whilst I agree you should look up the person, their outdated beliefs can and do cause bad actions of them.
Its called a strawman to bring up things about people (that aren't in debate) just so to knock them down. But the fact remains these theists you tend to justify debating with DO have absurd beliefs that we should not thank them by or respect those beliefs.
We shouldn't lose sight on the fact that their beliefs are unwarranted AND unwelcome in modern society.
I think @darkmatter2525 playing yahweh should face off with an end boss. That'd be sick. Just a thought.
Hope you saw his new vid on WLC;)
Was that ai voice? How did he get (Dr )WLC to say all of that at the end?
@@ninjaturtle11754 Not sure, but it sounded good lol
@@_Omega_Weapon I did & it was hilarious 😂
Maybe 🤔
Matt Dillahunty is the end boss of atheism
Battle theme is ???
I was wondering what a "Boss Debate" was, and why you thought they should end.
My problem with multi-hour videos isn't that I can't pay attention for so much time. It's that I simply don't _have_ that kind of time, or only rarely - so I am extremely selective in watching those. That aside, I'm not a fan of formal debates for a whole host of reasons. I prefer variants where both sides have time to look over the responses and research their own response, and then take however long it takes for it, which these days usually means every response is a separate video or blog post with days in between.
Well if you’re gonna be the end boss, your name has gotta be Master Debater.
Your debate with Than was so engaging, and the format was a good length - even if those things were, in large part, due to Than being a respectful and honest debate opponent. The best part to me was the "cross examination" section. I'd love to see a debate format using this whole steelmanning idea after the opening arguments, and then plenty of back and forth after that.
Driven by love for his King and passion for the church, Than Christopoulos seeks to bring people closer to Jesus.
Is that respectful and honest way of life? Or is it disrespectful and deceptive?
@@kimsland999 it is living his life based on a lie. Than has undoubtedly been lied to all of his life, and hasn't stopped and applied critical thinking to the claims of his church. Therefore, based on those lies, he's trying to convince others to also live their lives based on those lies. Whether or not it's international, he'd trying to convince people to believe lies, so what does that make him? At best, gullible.
@@greeneyedlady5580 I agree, but when is an adult (especially with Matt himself helping him) responsible for their outdated beliefs?
In other words, whilst originally the men of the church were likely at fault > now he is.
@@kimsland999 The key question being living a lie or not; I gather it comes down to the person’s character thus choice to either go for the explanations found appealing or those revealing the harsh world we live in. Blatantly citing Matt, you believe what you’re convinced of, not what you choose to and can become convinced for good or for bad reasons. Having said that, you can also be educated for better or for worse, depending solely on the level of knowledge and especially the agenda of the one educating you. Eventually it’s up to you to reconsider whether the information you receive relies on actual facts about reality or a subjectively accepted ideology, as respective are rarely if ever mutually inclusive, however fervently interpretations of the latter are being massaged into the former to suite an alternative worldview desperately held.
Ultimately, it’s always and unexceptionally your own responsibility to be critical enough to be able to distinguish between the two alternatives and make the decision whether you want to redistribute possibly unmonitored information or not. Whichever, at the end of the day it’s your credibility and honour at stake.
Ending my tirade on a but slightly lighter note - by experience unfortunately sparsely dispensed in conversations alike: it’s obvious the primary reason believers uphold their not only on personal preference but also admittedly by definition on unrealistic expectations based belief, is that they want the thing they believe in to be true. The quintessential question to ask them is why they in particular want it to be true. The answer given still doesn’t illuminate anything about the thing they believe in but that much more about themselves, irrespective founding their reasons in claimed altruism or veiled egotism.
@@patriklindholm7576 " _Blatantly citing Matt, you believe what you’re convinced of, not what you choose to and can become convinced for good or for bad reasons_ "
Negative, you're wrong.
A true sceptic will question others AND their own beliefs. Therefore being convinced is irrelevant.
With all your words its shocking you didn't think of that.
Yeah, I didn't like the End Boss. It was like a game show. I prefer a regular debate, but without the opening diatribes and without both speaking taking their turned. Go directly to the debate discussion. And if they end with audience questions, give the audience members a GOOD MICROPHONE.
Here's what I expected from an end boss:
1.Someone providing their arguments/position.
2. The end boss steelmanning the position (clarification until there is agreement on the position)
3. Agreement or rebuttal from the end boss based on that position. I.e. the best arguments against the steelmanned position.
4. Response to those challenges by the applicant.
5. Conclusion of the end boss (including any final assessment of the responses)
6. Final words from the applicant.
See how I didn't mention audience question? If you want smaller and more focused, keep the audience out of it.
See how I didn't add cross examination by the end boss? If you want smaller and more focused, the cross-examination should be shelved.
See how I didn't add the timeframes? The adherence of self imposed timeframes removed any free or natural flow.
Will we ever get the final Haqiqatjou Debate review?
That is the question.
So, by defeating Matt as End Boss do they think that means their god exists?
I would love to see this format promulgated!!! The last debate was the one on Islam, if he said 1400 or bless his holy name, my brain turned to worm pudding. Most theists use these debates to preach their dogma. I intend to fill out that form and ask a simple question.” How did it (god) create the cosmos and the Googleplexian(a number followed by 100 zeros)GALAXIES???
Where is the end boss watched cause i can't find any here on you tube
There's only been one. It should be under Live on the channel TheLine
@@_Omega_Weapon thank you I found it
Can't wait to see some of these debates. There have been many callers claiming to be able to prove god if they had more time. Here's their chance...if they were being honest (big IF).
Also, I really want to see an hour long video of Matt doing all the magic woo rituals that people have told him to do in order to get a response from god.
It is admirable that you are able to self, reflect and look at things and be able to tweak them. Kudos to all of you.
This sounds like a fantastic format
I see the point of the repeat subject of audience questions. Otherwise, I enjoyed the show.
The only thing I can say for certain that is true about reality is that Murder drones episode 7 was peak content! 🗣️
Good to see James Randi back at it
Q1. Is End Boss still a thing?
Q2. Is JMike a potnetial End Boss?
Q3. How does one apply to be vetted for it?
The problem with the end boss, is that you should take on the challenge at the end of the game, when you are levelled up and have all the powerful weapons and gadgets.
Debates are pointless...but given the constraints of how homo sapiens dialogue, they're pretty much unavoidable. I imagine that the percentage of people that undergo significant cognitive shifts, after listening to someone presenting contrarian opinions, has to be comparatively miniscule.
I'm a Christian but End Boss debate format would be awesome 😎. Christians and people of other religions getting along with Atheists agnostics and secular humanists is a world I'd love to see
Sorry, but as long as you keep supporting the nonsense (both ideas and people) you do, I can’t really get along with you, as you are diametrically opposed to the world and society I want to live in.
End boss is still not a great name for the non-combative debate you're looking for. I like the idea of an expert having a discussion with someone who is maybe less informed on a topic, that seems more like an end boss, but it's not a debate then.
It sounds like the end boss is a debater, time keeper and moderator rolled into one. There should be a moderator to keep both sides on topic, but it becomes hard to find an impartial moderator that won't turn it into a two on one.
The whole thing is too short, 90-120 minutes is better, i like that idea.
Of all the dumpster fire MDD I've seen, i tend to enjoy the open discussion sections the most, where claims can be immediately jumped on before it turns into a gish gallop or preaching.
Audience questions are worthless, but i understand its the best way to monetize.
I look forward to hearing some great topics (abortion, ghosts, aliens, religions) but please no more flat earth, there are no good interlocutors in that camp.
My two cents, at least.
Looking very spiritual Matt! 👌🍺
Awesome beard!
That beard looks awesome 😎😄
I wonder if Bill Craig will be man enough to participate.
No freaking way
Dr Craig dominates you atheist punks.
Is Matt transforming into James Randi?
On an intellectual level I kinda understand what you are doing, but I also wonder why are you giving any kind of air time to the largest cult on earth that has destroyed so many lives ?
Matt you ARE the end boss
Will u be doing a video on mr dennett
You need like a boxing referee
Not as much of taking turns as it is letting the conversation flow naturally without either party steamrolling the other
Hi Matt, I wondered what your thoughts on Deism, or perhaps even more, Jungian views on Christianity are (although these are quite different). I understand the notion that these things are essentially to close to some form of agnosticism or atheism to be regarded as genuinely religious, but at the same time I see that in your debate with Jordan Peterson that his arguments were more based in Jungian thought than genuine belief in the literal truth of the Bible.
[According to Jungian training analyst Murray B. Stein, Jung related theological and psychological constructs using three tenets:
Theological elements (such as God) can be interpreted to refer to psychological concepts.
Psychologists can evaluate the adequacy of theological constructs against the dynamics of the psyche.
Words about the psyche are also words about God, due to the correspondence between subjectivity and objectivity.]
Although he had a lot more to say than just that, and not all of it is free from criticism, I see from this that the link between these concepts and Peterson's description of Biblical narrative are quite similar, and I wondered, If you respond, what your thoughts are on this. Not as a religious view to be replaced by better explanations but perhaps as a more modern interpretation of the narrative, which I personally see as a benefit to the body of thought as a whole.
I suppose in that sense I'm more in favour of the Jefferson Bible, and I wondered if you viewed the whole enterprise as a waste (deist-adjacent philosophy) or as something that might detract from rationality, or if you saw It as perhaps a more rational view of the life of Jesus as a lesson.
Deism is untenable. A god that doesn't interact with reality in a detectable way... isn't detectable. I don't care about Jungian metaphorical gods...I care about ones that are claimed to be real.
@@SansDeity thanks for replying, take care
Sounds like a plan.
Are these public or patreon exclusive?
Almost everything is public after a few days
Hi Matt, I was hoping you could help me with something: which are the best books out there that you know of that help people sharpen their logic and to be more logical during arguments? That would really help.
Literally a video right here on this channel that addresses my book recommendations
@@SansDeity thank you!
A live debate with William Lane Craig would be nice. He likes to use big words. Have you tried asking?
WLC refuses to debate Matt on the fallacious excuse that Matt doesn’t have a degree. WLC knows he won’t get away with his usual sophistry so he’s scared.
End bosses need stages and an enrage mode
I'm glad you weren't being personally attacked during this "debate", but I have to be honest, I couldn't even watch the whole thing. One of the things I've always liked about your debates is that they're entertaining. This just felt too much like a sermon to me and was dull. It's an interesting concept, but not one that I'll watch
Sounds great, guys!👍💙💙💙🥰✌
I'd really rather a full hour of open conversation. Lol.
I like it❤
"Driven by love for his King and passion for the church, Than Christopoulos seeks to bring people closer to Jesus."
Is that respectful and honest way of life? Or is it disrespectful and deceptive?
Bad faith arguments are aggravating.
Have you ever debated a female have you ever debated like a Paul Wallis type or Israel Anderson or gnostic or how Jesus speaks against Yahweh?
You forgot flat earthers.
❤
Cool
Won't be long before youtube closes all comment sections.
Matt “Bowser” Dillahunty 😂
Audience questions need to be qualified. They should be required to present something factual/ strongly probable and relevant as a matter of either steelmanning or debunking specific aspects of an argument.
Sam shamoun debate when?
Why are you so scared to debate Andrew wWilson? I’m an atheist and am so terribly disappointed
Seriously lost all respect for you.
You're almost up to the real End Boss...
Use visual aids to help organize hours of thought.
Matt, you start to look like James Randi....!!!
Subtitles arabic please
Any thoughts about the Christian Bishop, Mar Mari Emmanuel, stabbed multiple times while preaching by a Muslim?
Haven't heard about it
@@SansDeity Matt will meet the Lord Jesus,,,Matt will die,,it's appointed for us once to die then Judgment !!,absent from the body is present with the Lord,,you will bow,,and you will confess,,it's a fact,,GOD SAID SO,,AND YOU CANT STOP HIM !! GOD IS VICTORIOUS,evidence for matt
@SansDeity Matt wants evidence of God ? Matt here is the evidence,,God said Matt dillahunty Will die,,absent from the body is present with the Lord,,it's appointed for us once to die matt,,then Judgment,,,you have the evidence,,now you have 2 options ,,except the unearned free gift,BY BELIEVING,,OR don't except the gift,,AND THE SMOKE OF YOUR TORMENT WILL GO UP FOREVER AND EVER,,GOD SAID SO,,,ITS EVERLASTING FIRE FROM GOD,,,,OR EVERLASTING LIFE ? YOUR CHOICE,,ITS NOT GODS WILL THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH !! HE MADE IT SUPER EASY,TERMINATING THE OLD COVENANT, ,AND BRINGING IN THE EASY NEW LIVING WAY !!,,THE NEW COVENANT WORLD HAS NO END,,ALL WHO BELIEVE THE EVERLASTING GOSPEL ARE BLESSED
Theists hungry for the big loot drop and exp. Boost by taking down the legendary Dillahunty ...