GENDER, GOD & TRUMP - Matt Dillahunty vs Dinesh D'Souza in NYC - Presented by Pangburn (CC: Arabic)

[@Pangburn]

Watch Sam Harris & Brian Greene on stage FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER kzbin.info/www/bejne/a6HFeaaIr510bdk

[@bobbyfartz5591]

Gotta get Dnesh to go against Aron Ra. I want to see how that would change

[@genel6830]

I just realized how ignorant Dnesh is, especially about climate change. It’s as if scientists don’t know how to model climate change, and scientists from various disciplines aren’t doing solid work. Leave it to the experts.

[@MarkoMood]

People have a really hard time distinguishing between believing a claim is not true and simply not being convinced by the claim.

[@Lucas20520]

This is true, although I think a lot of people do understand the differences but pretend to be ignorant because if they acknowledged that they understand the differences that would mean conceding the point. But hey I could be wrong LOL.

[@lugialover09]

People frequently get rejection vs refutation mixed up. That's why there's this whole confusion over what "atheist" means because saying "I don't believe in X's existence" does not equal "I believe X does not exist." And it's infuriating when people talk to you like you're stupid and that you just don't know what you are simply because they confuse "I don't believe X" with "X is false."

[@Lucas20520]

@lugialover09 I agree. I also think a good percentage of people do have an understanding because it's been explained to them so many times but pretend to be ignorant just to keep the argument going. That is extra infuriating to me!!! Willful ignorance is real, and sometimes it's not actually ignorance it's just pretending. I've seen it so many times when I talk to people about religion.

[@Lucas20520]

@Trolltician LMAO. You just described yourself. Good try though.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

Marko Brečić, the clearest way is to say “I don’t accept the claim as true”

[@sixthcastle]

I love Dinesh’s commitment to jumping into a new hypothetical every time he gets pressed by Matt

[@ikecalle]

I agree. Jordan Peterson does it also.

[@cloudshad0ws]

This guy is clearly intelligent enough to know exactly what he's doing, and that makes him an evil man. How's the home owner's insurance market in Florida these days, Dinesh? Does that fact that all the insurance companies are fleeing the state because climate change now prove it's real? I mean, it would have to right? Because you're an honest interlocutor.

[@EpicAlcatraz99]

I remember when i was 20 and angry at the world and a hardcore athiest. Im glad i moved past those days

[@sixthcastle]

@@EpicAlcatraz99 now you’re happy with the world and a hardcore atheist? Very nice

[@EpicAlcatraz99]

@sixthcastle ha. Nah. I got older, 27 now, grew into myself as a man. Started a family. Let the spiteful/hateful side of myself that wanted to not believe in god. Im better for it. So much better to be a man of faith than to worship pleasure and cheap entertainment.

[@chrisblifford2247]

Imagine having Hitchens chase you down a hole, and emerging ten years later just to find Matt Dillahunty there.

[@m.n.executor1902]

lmao hahaha

[@williamwilson8144]

You been there too

[@kevincasson9848]

Brilliant mate!!

[@mikerodgers7620]

I can't.

[@landofthefree2023]

You see it too.

[@OkstadOo]

This was just sad and embarrassing to watch. My condolences to Matt. Dinesh's reasoning is barely high school level in terms of sophistication, his only strategy being to control the conversation and keep talking to make it appear like he is winning. "Why don't people want to have conversations anymore??" This is why.

[@Real_MisterSir]

His vocabulary is as vast as his reasoning is void. Some would say it's perfectly balanced imbalance lol. Matt really had to sit through hours of this joke excuse of a debate.

[@Grande79]

You don’t hear Dinesh because you’re a brainwashed communist

[@incomingincoming1133]

That's what ppl who are used to preaching are like. Preaching has unwritten rules about not challenging and not interrupting, plus there is audience pre-selection.

[@doramaso]

No! Dinesh actually put his points across very well.

[@Tommynator666xxx]

Dinesh can't seem to understand that not believing in something because there's no evidence, and believing in something without evidence are not the same. It's pretty frustrating to watch.

[@Daniel-ld3zi]

Religious people do this when they know their evidence is weak. Of course they never apply this same standard when it comes to the thousands of other beliefs out there with weak evidence

[@SKRATCH1988]

@@Daniel-ld3zi like secular humanism? lmao... there is literally no evidence that secular humanism can sustain a society over generations... if anything there is evidence that it causes society to devolve into self interested atomized individuals that don't want to have kids or participate in their community. It encourages people to live in instant gratification and constantly project self-aggrandizing opinions.

[@jasonspades5628]

This is what happens when you care more about how profound you "Sound" than how justified your claims actually are.

[@CallinWire]

1:31:26 Oh my gosh Matt actually invited the audience to give his answer for him because Dinesh keeps trying to put the same words in Matt's mouth. The audience heard and understands Matt's position to the extent that they can correct Dinesh on it and it makes him look ridiculous.

[@2ndPigeon]

I love it

[@Fotomadsen]

That was such a brilliant move that made Dinesh look like a buffoon

[@bradleymiller6141]

Mr. D'Souza is amazing. It takes a special talent to argue one thing, then minutes later argue the exact opposite with zero shame.

[@earlofdoncaster5018]

Basically D'Souza repeatedly puts forth lazy propositions and Dillahunty effortlessly sweeps them aside. This was like mellow Godzilla versus Bambi.

[@jsynonymous4865]

only on the religion topic.

[@earlofdoncaster5018]

@@jsynonymous4865 What other topics were there?

[@riplettuce8076]

@@earlofdoncaster5018 gender and sex debate they had

[@earlofdoncaster5018]

@@riplettuce8076 Corrected I stand.

[@andrewfairborn6762]

@@earlofdoncaster5018 Matt owned De Souza on every point he raised. Honestly, his arguments were utterly laughable.

[@JamesN16]

So D’Souza, author of “Life After Death: The Evidence” has no evidence to back up his belief in an afterlife?

[@braggsean1026]

I never read the book and don't particularly like D'Sousa as an apologist (I think he is kinda pretentious and not very good) but it all depends on what you would accept as evidence. Ruse says he can't be convinced by evidence but an experience might change his mind. That is literally the evidence we have, other peoples experiences. Investigate them or don't but we have things to investigate none the less.

[@gdobie1west988]

jwilder116, I have that book, and I wasn't convinced. He is very weak.

[@markclark2288]

Empirical.....think empirical

[@braggsean1026]

@Lore Sogge your the one missing out on information, not me. I investigate all data, I dont just dimiss things because it doesn't fit my world view. Do you think any "alien intelligence" has been discovered?

[@braggsean1026]

@Lore Sogge and we still all die and dont find out anything until that happens... see you on the other side

[@pattystomper1]

30:40 When it comes to estimating the number of stars, at least Socrates has seen some stars, which gives him a starting point from which he can assume more stars exist. You can't make that claim regarding gods, because there is no starting point/ no evidence of even the first god. - Point to Matt Dillahunty

[@jaidev777]

pattystomper1 - Thata the thing, I notice a very distinct pattern here with Dinesh pretty much across every topic they entered into: he tries to counter-point with what he presents as (faulty) analogies (but I think are his own way of asserting his position on other things, while using as analogy to current topic) that are guilty of two things - false equivalency, and a tiny quoque. The stars one is a good example, and the one about how certain are you to marry someone, especially of false equivalency. It's one thing to observe anything in the natural universe best as we can, and make some educated guesses or hypotheses based on those. Sit on a chair fifty times, you may be within the realm of reason to presume that it won't break on the 51st attempt - even if it actually does, because we also do have evidence of chairs breaking. Be with a significant other for years, enough to know them so well that you may hazard a guess that you'll continue to have a fair relationship for quite a while longer. Even while acknowledging that yes, divorces and break-ups are a thing. Or every time you leave home for work you risk getting hit by traffic - yet you do it all the time because you have a fair prediction (for many aspects, such as your own precautions, your familiarity with your community etc) that you may not be in such an accident - even if it does end up happening, because we do have evidence of it happening at all to others. But to say it's no different from believing in something supernatural, and with all the attached specific claims to boot, but without any evidence at all -- that's the stark difference between faith in its colloquial sense, and blind faith. If he wanted to make an analogy about six stars to prove that it's reasonable to believe in a god, the situation would have to match that analogy: we would much more easily believe maybe there is another god, probably hundreds or more of them (like with the stars), if there were already proven to be six other gods.

[@Jabberwhorl_Cronstadt]

Dinesh's overall argument about climate change in relation to markets seems to be that money purifies people's actions and intentions and makes them more honest and true. Which is just BAFFLING.

[@jayjonah83]

That's how you know he voted Republican

[@hEmZoRz]

Also, his argument that 99.99% of climate change scientist (Powell, 2019) agree on the issue is because "climate change is a huge industry and pre-defined conclusions are bought" is idiotic; if something's a massive industry, it's oil, gas, other natural resources, industrial manufacturing, etc., and they would absolutely benefit from the polar opposite conclusions. So if the scientific consensus is for sale, as D'Souza proposes, I can't help but wonder how on earth did the "climate change industry" mange to snag every single climate scientist on planet Earth.

[@j85grim4]

​@@hEmZoRzThe funniest thing about climate deniers is they have no idea scientists since the end of the 1800's have been talking about climate change and there's been a settled consensus within the scientific community that it is both human caused and extremely dangerous for our long term survival since the 1960's! That's 60 years now people!

[@petermartin1954]

The American way

[@Real_MisterSir]

Imagine asking the follow up question of: "what did all the marketing gurus and finance bros do leading up to the 2008 economic crash?" Look at him fumbling to avoid disproving his own argument in any way possible. He'd probably start talking about evolution or some shit to divert attention.

[@vinny142]

40:20 Dinesh: "When it comes to climate change I look at how serous people are about it" Matt: "Well there's your problem" Dinesh is not a good debater, because he cannot hide the fact that pretty much all of his arguments are just political statements. He doesn't point at data to contradict climate change, no, he points at a rival of Trump and tuts at him. In what universe is that an argument? Not only does your carbon footprint not change by having seven homes, the fact that the man has seven homes AT BEST makes him a hypocrit. he can still be absolutely correct about the enviroment. A doctor who smokes is absolutely 100% correct when he says that it's better for *you* to stop smoking. Go watch Dinesh vs Hitchens, it's a good laugh.

[@teresazbikowska7094]

He also pointed out that we are fed lies about climate change revealed by global cooling for decades prior to 1980.

[@thecontextual1one411]

Matt is who the centre-left needs to be more like- less focus on tone,more on topic.

[@459luker]

Matt is just so good at articulating what most logical thinkers would believe/agree with, and he can do it under the pressure of a live debate. It's really impressive.

[@Tom135]

years and years of experience plus he's a really smart guy

[@MrBOASTMAN32]

Hard to beleive he ever had a fear of public speaking. The growth is unreal.

[@jackmikhail6807]

very impressive.

[@Jackson-pu7gd]

I honestly think that matt dillahunty is on his way to becoming the closest thing to the next hitchens of our time. He shares many of the traits... the intelligence, the sense of humor, the quick wit and effectiveness at exposing flawed arguments, and the lack of care for the embarrassment of others who say ridiculous things. There will never be another hitchens, but i would put dillahunty right up there.

[@johnwhayne6311]

"logical thinkers"? There is nothing logical about materialism...unless science proved that chemicals produce thought. 😂

[@jordanconnely9602]

When I was younger I had a friend who would turn on my hazard lights, wipers, change all my climate control settings and fuck with my radio while I was driving. This is what I see Dinesh doing. Pulling all the levers as fast as he can and hoping you'll miss some. Reeeeaaaacching....

[@LeeStoneman]

This is exactly Peterson's approach as well. Good catch.

[@gking407]

We are watching people who believe in religion (and not in democracy) short-circuit and break down old ways of thinking. Unfortunately they are taking us down with them

[@ArcadianGenesis]

That friend was an asshole

[@elirien4264]

Big time.

[@corneliahanimann2173]

I imagine that is also representative of how they run circles around what is evident in their minds

[@TheHofrichter]

Matt is trying to teach Dinesh how to think. But Dinesh is very resistant.

[@fullyfb3847]

Biological reality exists, and it trumps subjective experience. Especially when a person's subjective experience is, in fact, dissociated from reality. Matt lost the trans debate. If you have to do this level of mental gymnastics to get out of acknowledging something so fundamentally true, it's likely because you're arguing on behalf of the factually incorrect position. If you claim that you aren't denying biology while also claiming trans women are women, guess what? You don't pass the logic test. You get an F

[@thepalebluedot4171]

You can never logically win against a brainwashed fanatic !

[@ErikLiberty]

​@@fullyfb3847Based on everything else he stated, I think Matt was saying that trans women are biological males who are presenting as the social construct that we call women. In other words, trans women are women (social construct) and male (biology). He obviously knows that the XY chromosomes don't all turn into XX chromosomes just because a man declares he is a woman.

[@fullyfb3847]

@ErikLiberty I reject the social construct. It's deeply homophobic. There is no right or wrong way to be a man or a woman, but you are either a man or a woman. Either that or your suffering from an atypical genetic condition. Biology trumps subject experience, especially when the subjective experience in question is dissociated from reality and factually incorrect. Make sense? There are far too many retarded intellectuals in 2023. It's very simple. Liking the color pink and being into butt stuff doesn't make you trans and it most definitely doesn't make a man a woman. A woman is the category of human that every single person in the world was birthed from. People like Matt and pretty much every leftist have the tendency of getting so caught up in the philosophical weeds that they unintentionally blind themselves from super duper simple shit. They, of course, don't see it that way because that's how effective their self-induced blindness is at filtering reality out of the intellectual equation.

[@yourmother4898]

@@fullyfb3847 derp. You don't understand things.

[@cinemuh]

Matt is using less than half the words than D'Souza and easily makes his argument more clearly. D'Souza is fillerbustering and still losing on facts.

[@vikisalhotra1051]

Glad to see Matt he's getting clearer and clearer over time it's really worth listening to him .

[@tkam54]

Matt may be the GOAT of atheist debaters. He definitely on the Mount Rushmore of atheist.

[@atomicrooster56]

Shame we can't say the same for D'Souza.

[@Akira3kgt]

@@tkam54 It's because of all the practice he gets on AXP

[@Akira3kgt]

@David Anewman Please provide at least one piece of valid evidence that supports the bible. I look forward to the opportunity to show you how it's wrong.

[@Akira3kgt]

@David Anewman 1.) The CMBR is electromagnetic radiation. In the extremely early universe, the first protons and the first electrons combined to form the first hydrogen atoms. This produces photons as a sort of byproduct. These photons are the CMBR and yes it happened before any stars existed. 2.) We know the finite speed of light with great certainty through many different experiments. It is not infinite. When the CMBR happened, it happened all over the infant universe and therefore was "ubiquitous instantaneously". Was that evidence that you provided your best evidence for a god? If not, then what is most convincing to you and we can discuss that instead. If that was your best, then did I explain it well enough that you understand why it is not evidence of any god?

[@benjamincain2792]

After all his waffling and misleading analogies, D'Souza's argument for theism was basically Pascal's Wager, a pragmatic argument that we have to make up our mind in the face of the great unknown, so we might as well take the leap of faith that benefits us in social or psychological terms. He never got around to defending the second part of the argument, that theism is more beneficial than atheism. Dillahunty, of course, would say that the utility of theism isn't the same as its truth value, and he'd say that instead of taking a leap of faith we should admit our ignorance and leave it at that. D'Souza would then have to say we can't just leave it at that; indeed, he could appeal to Hume and say that reason is the slave of the passions (emotions, instincts, "habits"). The problem with this conversation was that D'Souza talked too much and wasted time with strawmen and personal attacks. Dillahunty was too nice, since he never got around to clobbering the pragmatic structure of D'Souza's (implicit) argument for theism. D'Souza's argument was only implicit because it wasn't well-stated. He never really got around to his "reasons" for believing that theism is more useful than atheism, and he certainly never drew the conclusion, "Therefore God exists."

[@harrybarber3255]

Benjamin Cain if your a Christian because of Pascal's wager do you think god will buy it?

[@morganren2977]

I was going to say the same thing. Pascal Wager.... mehh

[@DrVarner]

Sohan Biswas, are you saying that one cannot make an argument outside of naturalistic presupposition? Also, my comment wasn’t the argument. Additionally, you might have missed the “Man or Rabbit” reference. It is an allusion to an argument made by C.S. Lewis. Judging by your comment about what constitutes an argument, I would say mine was a bit over your heard.

[@flylord42]

Pascal's wager is a flawed construct.

[@aegisgfx]

His first augment right out the gate was denying that there is anyone in government trying to make laws straight from the fucking bible.. is he really THAT clueless??

[@bobstrayer9004]

The reason they made no progress is that Dinesh kept changing the subject every time his argument fails.

[@TBOTSS]

Dinesh kicked Matt's head in - just like he did with Danial Dennet.

[@Rob_Jacobs]

@@TBOTSSLOL at this interpretation of the debate

[@8mileshigh]

​@TBOTSS Yeah, I think Dinesh''s absurd positions on almost everything caused him some headache.

[@olemew]

@@TBOTSS One of my favorite moments, on climate change: D: "the same scientists, the SAME scientists that..." M: "from the 70s? are they 84 now or what?" D: "fair enough"

[@Virtualblueart]

Dinesh was straw manning so hard that a few little pigs later built a 50 room mansion out of the excess straw.

[@JAKFLY28]

Give some examples

[@marwantamo839]

@@JAKFLY28 Watch the debate and pay attention to the occasions on which he says, (So you are saying).

[@fabioq6916]

@@JAKFLY28 you need them to be pointed out?!?!? Really?

[@JAKFLY28]

@@fabioq6916 Still waiting!

[@adamsmasher9769]

@@JAKFLY28 there are so many strawmen that it would take hundreds of lines if text to point them all out. Dinesh makes his dime on lying and strawmanning. He is famous for it.

[@giladpachter4546]

"You don't live in a world where the overwhelming majority of the people believe in unicorns and are trying to legislate what other people can do based on what they think unicorns want"

[@codeblood2000]

Are you talking about the scientific unicorn or the mythological unicorn?

[@giladpachter4546]

@@codeblood2000 Oh, I'm not that ambitious. Scientific unicorns are very hard to come by 🤣🤣

[@codeblood2000]

@@giladpachter4546 I fail to see the humor? Do you know what the scientific unicorn is it's on the endangered species list

[@denydefendepose]

@@joedanache7970 If you believe no religion legislates their beliefs, you're seriously naive or willfully ignorant.

[@sledgecorp]

@@joedanache7970 that is perhaps one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. I live in the US. People with religious motivations legislate their religion all the time here.

[@loki6626]

D'Souza, "We can't know if there's an afterlife so we should assume there is." "We can't be sure about climate change so we should assume it's false."

[@brians9794]

The converse of this is almost as equally absurd.

[@ArmchairRizzard]

@@brians9794 no it isn't. You're claiming that because we can't know there is an afterlife, we shouldn't believe in one is absurd?"

[@RubixB0y]

@@ArmchairRizzard You would be right in calling @Brian S out, but I believe your interpretation of converse is incorrect. With P->Q being the logical implication: P1: We can't know if there's an afterlife. Q1: We should assume there is an afterlife. P2: We can't be sure about climate change. Q2: We should assume climate change is false. The converse (Q->P) of @Loki would be "We should assume there is an afterlife, so we can't know if there's an afterlife," (Q1->P1) and, "We should assume climate change is false so we can't be sure about climate change" (Q2->P2). Which does sound pretty absurd. If we take the contrapositive (~Q->~P) like you tried to, or thought @Brian S maybe meant to, you get, "We shouldn't assume there is an afterlife so we can know if there is," (~Q1->~P1) and, "We shouldn't assume climate change is false so we can be sure about it." (~Q2->~P2) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the contrapositive sounds downright reasonable: making me question how these statements can be logically equivalent if I would consider the original implications incorrect. Can they both be right? D'Souza did have some pretty horrible fallacies including false equivalencies, numerous strawmen, moving goalposts and conversation topics, refusing to get pinned down to any one statement so he was much less convincing for sure. The contrast of money-centered vs human-centered was a very apt observation by Matt near the end.

[@wasdwasdedsf]

we cant be sure of climate change cause the data is trash and propagandized to the Point where they send retarded Children to scream insults at World leaders

[@tsukasaknoell1812]

Exactly rubix... I agree with you...hes is misunderstanding Danesh....and climate change is nonsense..not that the climate doesn't change...but the rate at which they claims of our impact on it....and I do agree that burning oil cannot be got.....but they have people believing co is a poison....sorry bout butting in your comment but couldn't help myself...

[@M4ttNet]

Matt's look is hilarious in this whole conversation. He's got complete logic kiddy gloves on. He seems constantly baffled by the logical contradictions spilling out of Dinesh that he clearly gave up on a real debate and he's just trying to help Dinesh make his own arguments coherent enough to have a conversation.

[@pabriny]

Yes! Perfectly put.

[@ibrahimkayikci2146]

Yet again he claims that "exclusively trusting Science to follow an ideology" is the only reason that he asserts agnosticsm, but he quickly puts aside Science when gender identity is being discussed. He's obviously hiding his real motives for identifying as an agnostic. I think he's full of shit. He's probaby not even an agnostic. He just "hates" religion, which brings this whole thing down to "feelings".

[@jimboforreasonify]

I think you listened to a different debate than I did

[@Lerian_V]

You listened to a different debate.

[@JK-xk7km]

Yeah..we must have been watching a different video. I had to pause and take a breath when Matt started prattling on about the mentally insane. He sounded quite stupid and shockingly ignorant of the law. It is not debatable that the mentally insane can't be held responsible for their crimes. That a person is held in an asylum for the insane is not the equivalent of holding them responsible. They are being held for their own protection and for the protection of the rest of us. This is common knowledge you can look up yourself after unplugging your nose from Matts butt crack.

[@AnthonyGood]

This is the first time I've heard Dinesh D'Souza talk. I can't believe how awfully simplistic he is. With him it seems like everything in life can be explained or explained away through some conservative political grievance. Things were going alright until he got into climate change, and then it went off the rails. Once he cited the hypocrisy of Michael Bloomberg and the Obamas, and the actions of real estate markets as evidence against climate change, this became unwatchable. Hats off to Dillahunty for continuing to stay patiently engaged.

[@cupocity303]

I disagree. I think that's where he really scored points as well as the transgender issue.

[@Hatrimn]

He didn't cite hypocrisy and real estate markets as evidence against climate change, in fact he acknowledged that climate change is happening as it always has. To what degree it is happening, how we are exacerbating it, and how we should change society to correct a global climate is the issue and the clergymen of climate change are proven hypocrites who also misrepresent what the actual consensus among scientists is. AOC is another example, who drew up an insane plan to refashion modern life on the premise that we are toast in 10 years, a claim with no scientific standing... so secular legislators are no less irrational or dangerous than religious legislators.

[@vanguard4065]

1:55:08 matt loses half his train of thought when Trump is mentioned. what an intellectual coward and weakling.

[@vanguard4065]

1:55:08 matt loses half his train of thought when Trump is mentioned. what an intellectual coward and weakling.

[@johnclavis]

@@Hatrimn LOL you must be a fan of Pucker Carlson

[@AlanWinterboy]

D'Souza's greatest skill is in throwing in so many tangential issues, one right after another, that the whole argument gets lost.

[@human_hope]

And also try to trick the other with his questions. Such a dishonest POS

[@santiagoarroyob]

He tries to argue by analogy and absurd, an old and flawed argument

[@marktomasetti8642]

Matt simply speaks sense while Dinesh blows smoke. I think the reason Dinesh speaks at such length is that he cannot allow Matt to respond. Matt would leave Dinesh’s "arguments" in pieces on the floor. Dinesh also seems to be struggling to make a valid point; he tends to wander all over the map while doing it.

[@graymatter6661]

Fellas! This is the epitome of "If you can't convince them, confuse them."

[@Norblivion]

Dinesh has no idea how to defend a position. Listening to him wriggle in and out of his position was painful.

[@justiceperhay8328]

Shouldn't Dinesh believe in climate change based on Pascals wager alone? If it's a good enough reason to believe in god (without evidence), shouldn't it be a good enough reason to believe in climate change for which we do have evidence?

[@Fastlan3]

@Achilleskneel by exact amounts we don't know, but to a certain degree we are overwhelmingly responsible given all available data. Absent human activity, such levels of green house gases has never been recorded to be released in such large quantities in such a short period of time. We are transferring energy that took many millions of years to build up under ground, and we are releasing it into the atmosphere at a record speed. That is now energy added to a system for which would be absent without human activity. If we have options to stop that, then we should, if not only for the sake of reducing unknown implications of our introduction of such a quantity in such a short time period. I believe it is bad ideas to shut the garage door and run your car... We have a solution, stop closing the door (stop using fuels which close that door).

[@crumbum2]

ZING! That would have been a great point to push him on. Even if you don't know the evidence of Climate Change, isn't it wise to take action NOW in order for it never to happen?

[@crumbum2]

@Achilleskneel Who cares if Man is responsible, we know it is happening, and ONLY MAN can prevent the world from cooking. As Neil Degrasse Tyson said, this is an opportunity, not a crisis. If we can stop climate change we can take that technology to other planets.

[@kylefrandsen2665]

@Achilleskneel We know the largest cause for global warming is human-caused carbon emissions. We know the mechanism is the greenhouse effect. There are loads of studies showing how the gasses of carbon-based emissions trap the heat. The rapid increased rate of warming coincides with the measured rapid increase of carbon-based emissions starting with the industrial revolution. This really isn't controversial among scientists. You're asking for more science but you're already not listening to what they're saying so I don't see how that will help. climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[@crumbum2]

@Achilleskneel No one is risking your liberties, we KNOW Climate Change is occurring and increasing. Put the 'power' in the hands of the scientists who provide the EVIDENCE of Climate Change, they would have the best chance at stopping it. I'm going to disregard your 'whataboutism' because it is a disingenuous position.

[@whatwasisaying]

Every apologist's argument I have heard comes down to 'I want it to be God, therefore it must be God'. No proof. Also, Matt has successfully avoided Dinesh's constant attempts to 'debate trap' him.

[@88mphDrBrown]

Not to be mean, but having so many simple spelling errors makes you appear less credible. *argument, *therefore, *successfully

[@whatwasisaying]

@@88mphDrBrown What are you talking about? Those are the correct spellings of those words. Maybe you need some remedial education.

[@88mphDrBrown]

@@whatwasisaying you really don't need to be like that, I was just trying to help you out. Besides it just makes you look worse, everyone can see that you edited your comment and fixed the spelling.

[@whatwasisaying]

@@88mphDrBrown You are incorrect and I am starting to believe you are trolling me. Goodbye forever.

[@toforgetisagem8797]

​@@88mphDrBrownSpell the words you say are incorrect. I have checked USA spelling and British spelling and I can't see where the error is. Therefore can be spelled therefor but it's an older version as far as I can tell.

[@LetterToGodFromMeToYou]

It's hilarious that in less than 2 years after this debate, coastal properties in CA have remained stagnant while inland properties have doubled in value.

[@moragslothe6449]

yOu JuSt dOn'T uNdErStAnD tHe MaRkEt! Lol DD is a 🤡

[@EGOS42]

Yeah, just watching this now. It's aged like milk. Canada is on fire and Insurance companies are fleeing coastal States in the U.S. I wonder if he's revised his position. Given past performance he doesn't seem to integrate new data into his World view.

[@SBayne762]

@@EGOS42they’re not fleeing coastal states, they are fleeing blue ones being driven into the ground by woke politics.

[@Real_MisterSir]

@@EGOS42 Integrating new data to derive corresponding behavioral change would be to embrace science. Clearly that is not a priority for someone like Dinesh

[@olemew]

Didn't we establish that the market is not part of Science because people's perception or majority of opinion doesn't count as evidence? People in the comments are almost as stupid as Dinesh.

[@Mystrohan]

That was a very cloying debate. At least most of Matt's opponents make some effort at trying to respond to his arguments. Dinesh gave him no such courtesy.

[@malirk]

1:37:29 - Matt just EXPLAINED to him that he keeps strawmanning him and DD literally does it again...

[@countvanbruno182]

He can't stop strawmanning because he has no argument.

[@malirk]

@Don Jon What goalposts did he move? Any topic you'd like to debate on?

[@aarrgghh]

quite gracious of dinesh to invite all of his strawmen to the show

[@a.chowdhury6784]

Hahaha!

[@curious5661]

They were there helping him move all those goalposts.

[@donaldmcronald8989]

The whole gang's back together.

[@kobe51]

@@curious5661 lol

[@kylefrandsen2665]

OK. That made me laugh. So true.

[@joed9305]

Dinesh: Tells a story with multiple issues. Matt: Concisely explains the logical flaws. Dinesh: Restates what Matt says, incorrectly. Matt: Points out that he didn't say that and gives more good support for his position. Dinesh: Whataboutism. Changes the topic. Loop.

[@AzimuthTao]

It's great that Matt is calling out Dinesh, in real-time, on the things he normally spews to the public, unchallenged.

[@davelop5507]

Seriously

[@jerrylong6238]

@@davelop5507 Very seriously, and long over dee too.

[@00dfm00]

It's like watching Trump at a rally.

[@grantduke318]

@@00dfm00 you’ve been too critical on the wrong rallies.

[@00dfm00]

@@grantduke318 You're right. Trump is too self absorbed during rallies to hear anyone but himself.

[@ItIsBigSmoke]

Matt is clearly saying what his expertise is in. Dinesh knew he wont last long against Matt on topic of god so he was constantly branching the topics.

[@teresazbikowska7094]

Dillahunty brought up climate change. That was the only significant branching.

[@adabsurdum3314]

Right. God can't be rationalised, I guess. I know I have never believed in my adult life, in a god. But clearly there's a divide in what you can "see" and what you can rationalise. And anecdotally, I've never seen 'it'. Only my own divinity.

[@mikerodgers7620]

Matt knows he's going to hell.

[@brandonman1315]

@@mikerodgers7620 There is no hell, thank god….?!

[@mikerodgers7620]

@@brandonman1315 Where will evil people like you go? To hell. God said so.

[@spencespace7763]

Basically, Dinesh attempted to make bad points with 20 different bad examples each only to have Matt speak for 2 minutes and destroy all of them. In a desperate move, Dinesh tried to keep interrupting Matt because he knew he was getting owned.

[@WayneJohn-fq6cn]

😂

[@dawnkeyy]

Dinesh is a skilled speaker. On many occasions, since I'm listening to this casually, he sort of entranced me into kind of going along with him. And then Matt just utterly cuts through the bullshit, it comes down like a house of cards, with one or two incredibly precise and skillfully aimed sentences and wakes me back up. Hitch would do this, but many times in a brawler sort of way. His interlocutor would throw a shitty haymaker, and he would throw one back with even more force to mock the other person. Matt simply slips the haymaker and lands the most precise jab-cross right on the chin. While both deliver knock outs, I find Matts style more productive overall and it offers more to learn from.

[@Cmez872]

Agreed, what this debate demonstrates to me is that speaking in pundit sound bites, as Dinesh did so often here, are NOT arguments, and Matt eviscerated him every time he tried to do it. Recall the climate change portion of the discussion, especially Dinesh throwing out red meat like so-and-so purchased this expensive home therefore Climate change..🤯 were just embarrassing moments for Dinesh and easy pickings for Matt.

[@Real_MisterSir]

Yea in that regard Dinesh is very much like Ben Shapiro. Both are good talkers, good at getting people stringed along for their tangents, their derivatives, especially with the way they articulate themselves through what seems to make sense - but when you cut it apart piece by piece you realize it's nothing but a good looking word salad that was sold to you as also containing chicken, but your dissection simply shows there is no chicken to be found. Just word salad. Very pretty and well presented, but ultimately just salad.

[@TheFightFoo]

You just admitted to being a dummy. Matt gets destroyed.

[@dawnkeyy]

@@TheFightFoo Your comment isn't half as rhetorically effective as Dinesh's stuff is.

[@TheFightFoo]

@@dawnkeyy k

[@Yossarian.]

This is what happens when a person well versed in logic debates with a theist. ..logic requires far less words to state a position. Matts answers are concise consistent and to the point. ...as usual the theist is all over the place requiring far more wordy responses and analogies.

[@angru_arches]

"..logic requires far less words to state a position."...yes Lord 🙄 Matt's and Atheistic positions are concise because they're too simplistic and illogical.... It's ultimately "I don't know how any of these happened... there's no God and we hate Him"...this is Atheism in a capsule. Logic: out of nothing, nothing comes. The universe is something that came into existence. Something caused it. Atheist response: how do you know something caused it? Why couldn't it have just happened? Logical response: it's illogical for something that had a beginning not to have a cause. 2. "To be or not to be" is choice, so cause must be personal, coz persons make choices. 3. Person must be powerful, and outside time and space... omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal. 4. Person must have concern for us: universe is so finely tuned to support human life. It was designed for this, life on earth, as far as we know. 5. This person came and walked among us to enable us to know him personally: some 2,000 yrs ago a man claiming to be God in flesh did many wonderous things that and to prove His deity predicted His death and Resurrection....after death, his body missing and for a period of 40 days over 500 people who didn't believe are recorded to have witnessed him risen. Many of these people have their lives for this testimony. Atheist position: "I am unconvinced... people don't rise from the dead"...yes Sherlock, it's why it's called miracle. Atheists: "still maintain it all came from nothing by chance...magic without the magical, the props, stage , nothing... So bless you in the name of your lord and savior Nothingness.

[@camerondye6108]

I’ve noticed they often struggle to answer even the most basic questions. The sure sign of a charlatan is making the simple so unnecessarily complex that it’s hard to even refute

[@angru_arches]

@@camerondye6108 The atheist, you mean. It's the atheist who tries to explain that very irrefutable design is actually not designed- Dawkins "it may appear designed, but it is not" and commits to writing an entire book, The Blind Watchmaker" to explain that this miracle of a Cosmos is not designed...Krauss, writing an entire book "a universe from nothing" where he defines nothing as high-energy randomly moving particles in preexisting space and unaccounted for energy... If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck''''''if it looks designed, and functions predictably, it is designed...the whole world even the illiterate understands this... "The sure sign of a charlatan is making the simple so unnecessarily complex"; the atheist.

[@camerondye6108]

@@angru_arches The evolutionary process “designs” things over vast time horizons. It actually is a pretty simple concept.

[@camerondye6108]

@@angru_arches Not to mention, “it was designed by God” isn’t an explanation. You’re just pushing the question back further and making it unnecessarily complicated. If you were to accept this proposition, you still have no explanation for how it was designed, or how the creator came to be in the first place either. An appeal to the supernatural is not a satisfactory solution to the problem of infinite regression.

[@PhilJRose]

Two things astound me... 1) how basic D'Souza's lack of understanding is. He simply hasn't a clue about logic or philosophy. 2) how much he looks like Mr Bean.

[@blacbraun]

If Mr Bean was Indian.

[@einstu]

Dinesh is like a lot of us: unwilling to concede a point. Despite his vein struggle to defend his position, he never accepted that he was wrong or seemed to call in question his own philosophy.

[@jessefay4984]

@@einstu be specific.

[@MrRhomas913]

@@einstu - he has no choice to be what he is since he has no free will - I am with dillahunty, hitchens, harris, and Dennet we are just observers on the inevitable debate of meaningless topics

[@esoterico7750]

D’Souza’s argument seems to be based on that of Henry James, who was one of the most important American philosophers ever...

[@459luker]

1:28:48 I love it how dinesh admits (during his ridiculous misrepresentation of matts position) that he is taking a leap of faith in believing that god exists. So he accepts that he is believing something without adequate evidence.

[@kevindelariva7999]

We all take a leap of faith that gravity will continue to exist. Is creating things on the basis that gravity works done without adequate evidence?

[@stevek6077]

@@kevindelariva7999 We have reason to believe that a testable, observable phenomenon will continue to exist as we observe it everywhere in our universe and understand that it has existed for billions of years. We have predictive models, measurements, and experience which informs our expectation that gravity will continue to exist. That is not belief on faith, it's understanding based on very sound reason.

[@prabhakaranjeyamohan4579]

@@kevindelariva7999 At least, the gravity model works and all predictions based on the gravity model such as planes, rockets, death by falling off a cliff continue to hold true. You are right, it is an assumption that it will hold true in the future but, if tomorrow there was no gravity we have to revise the model and account for it. Unlike the God hypothesis, where the proponents won't change assumptions even when the evidence is contrarary.

[@tannermclaughlin2653]

@@kevindelariva7999 you're confusing faith with having a good reason

[@JaseFromOutterSpace]

@@kevindelariva7999 You sound exactly like Dinesh with that reach lol.

[@Maddjacklee81]

This is the guy that made 2000 Mules. It seems he’s easily convinced of the things he wants to be convinced of.

[@burner918]

I love Matt's skill and elegance at debating. You can tell that Dinesh knows his position is lost, and it's sad that he feels he has to hold on to it anyway. On the contrary, Matt is often open about being wrong or happy to be proven wrong. Another great thing about Matt is that he seems to want to understand his opponent's position rather than simply coming up on top. It kept feeling like Dinesh is debating to win and have his position be accepted, whereas Matt seems to be want to know why and how one could have the position they hold. I love how articulate Matt is about admitting to what we don't know and cautioning against the error of attributing it to the divine.

[@davidrodriguez4016]

Legend has it if you drink a shot every time Danesh says "so you are saying", you'll die.

[@ninjason57]

Likely true. But it's the correct way to have a debate. Presumption leads to confusion.

[@gattaca5911]

@@ninjason57 lol.....so it is okay to try to build a strawman/assertion as long as you frame it as a question? when did you stop beating your wife?

[@TheLeotLion]

@@ninjason57 Except Danesh completely ignores when Matt corrects him and states (again and again and again ... ) that Danesh is wrong about the position.

[@nopefuyt674]

@@ninjason57 Literally nothing D'Souza ever says is true. This is why his 2000 mules bullshit never made it anywhere.

[@nopefuyt674]

@@ninjason57 Not surprising you are fucking delusional though. You follow Rave Dubin, Jordan Peterson, Thomas Sowell, PragerU, JP Sears, John Stossel, Ben Shabibo, and the Babylon Bee.

[@jesusinsocks]

The number of times Dinesh misrepresented Matt's position, and the number of times Dinesh claimed Matt said something that he didn't, and the number of times Dinesh set up a strawman, is staggering.

[@mikerodgers7620]

You see what you want to. You are a fool.

[@FM-dm8xj]

and the number of times u didnt write any examples is staggering!

[@mikerodgers7620]

@@FM-dm8xj Fuck examples you heathen loser.

[@FM-dm8xj]

@@mikerodgers7620 You need religion in your life🤣

[@mikerodgers7620]

@@FM-dm8xj You'll need sun block after THIS life. 💥

[@NxDoyle]

I've listened to this a few times over the years and came back because I had the idea to count how many times D'Souza prefaced a remark with, "So you're saying that..." before misrepresenting his opponent's position. Even at 2x speed, it was impossible. He's just such a dishonest interlocutor.

[@Джонатан-р8д]

The reason I enjoy Matt so much is the fact that he stops the conversation the second it gets fucking silly. Dinesh is nothing BUT fucking silly.

[@ab-zg8pt]

100%

[@soumyadeepray1272]

@@ab-zg8pt Exactly. It got cringey within 10 mins.

[@cupocity303]

@@soumyadeepray1272 and it really got cringey when Matt had to defend his position on transgender bathrooms and transgender women competing in male sports.

[@zupremo9141]

I guess you enjoyed him saying MEMEMEMEMEMEMEME for 2hrs.

[@sinephase]

30:10 - Dinesh's mode of living seems to be having "faith" that nothing bad is going to happen to him, while Matt is saying he has hope that bad things don't happen to him. Having hope and having faith are completely different.

[@tha2793]

They are both forms of trust.

[@sinephase]

@@tha2793 what does hope have to do with trust?

[@Mystrohan]

@@tha2793 No they aren't. Faith necessarily entails an act of trust (which is not the same as it BEING a form of trust, BTW), but hope does not by necessity require anything more than desire.

[@Geo1670]

I'd bet that there are deep Freudian reasons that Dinesh chooses the the example of "let's say I identify as a toad".

[@philferroni]

He must think he's actually a toad then. That part of the debate Matt was on shaky ground. The problem with people thinking their the apposite sex is that there not. As much dancing around will never change that. If I'm 30, according to Matt I can be 20 or whatever age I want. You can't change your age and you can't change your sex/gender. I would like to ask Matt if he would have sex with a man who thinks he's a women.

[@Hyperversity1]

Trans people don't think they can change their sex. They want to change their body so that they will be accepted as the opposite gender that they were assigned at birth. Sec and gender are not the same thing. One is rooted in biology and the other is a social concept that science has nothing to say about.

[@elirien4264]

@@Hyperversity1 I have a problem with the concept of "assigning gender" at birth. That is nonsense. A baby is born and identified as male or female. It's not like the doctor or the patents arbitrarily decide what gender their baby is.

[@Hyperversity1]

@@elirien4264 gender and sex are two different concepts. You are correct in that you cant assign someone their sex at birth. Genetics does that. However, you can raise them to emulate certain ideals, wear certain clothes or otherwise behave in ways that conform with a previously established (and arbitrary, by the way) set of ideals about what men and women are "supposed" to be or are supposed to act or are supposed to look.. Gender and sex are not the same thing. I can't stress this enough.

[@Slightchub9340]

Lmfao the Supreme Court question did NOT age well 😂

[@DexterDexter123]

Thanks for this. For some reason I thought Dinesh would have some new chops. Clearly not. And he starts with a lie. Hitch was not keen on abortion true, but he was pro giving women the rights to their reproductive systems. There’s no pulling the wool over peoples’ eyes like that. Not that audience, not these KZbin viewers and certainly not Matt.

[@davidhughes7174]

Pro Choice.

[@Vindsus86]

At least Dinesh didn't open with his joke about being a mosquito at a nudist beach. (As in practically every other debate of his that I've heard. It got pretty old pretty fast.)

[@DexterDexter123]

Vindsus86 or his rodeo bit

[@teresamcmud2605]

Exactly. Most pro choice people are not pro abortion. Then later when he was talking about polling voters on questions like who thinks abortions are fun. Ummm who the fuck thinks that?

[@benclark4823]

@@teresamcmud2605 just because you don’t know doesn’t mean they don’t exist 🙄

[@darcyoneill9377]

Matt Dillahunty eviscerated Dinesh D'Souza. D'Souza tap dances; he wiggles around more than a worm on a fishhook with the same effect -he loses, badly.

[@jjbradian3834]

I swear Dinesh loves the sound of his own voice. His analogies take so long and it doesn't take a genius to spot where they go wrong or sets up a complete strawman. So happy to see Matt shut down every point made by Dinesh.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

not abruptly enough IMO

[@ihateexcessivelylongandpoi4490]

D'Felon makes my skin crawl. He is such a creepy little twerp.

[@VesnaVK]

Dinesh sucked up the last minutes repeating himself endlessly about elderly people and their supposedly unneeded doctor appointments. Matt kept saying, I get it. Dinesh would not stop! So rude.

[@markmooroolbark252]

Yeah. Matt doesn't like the sound of his own voice. Hilarious. What points did Matt shut down? I found his pedantic nitpicking and sematic games very irritating.

[@cygnustsp]

@@markmooroolbark252 its called clarity and making sure the points are understood. Theists misconstrue ideas and demonstrate fuzzy thinking

[@rickgarner6269]

Two years later, D'Souza pleaded guilty in federal court to one felony charge of using a "straw donor" to make the illegal campaign contribution. He was sentenced to eight months in a halfway house near his home in San Diego, five years' probation, and a $30,000 fine.

[@josephzettl1433]

D'Souza actually pleaded guilty in 2014, but was pardoned by Trump in 2018.

[@AnnaP-uh3mc]

Dinesh: “We not only have conciousness but self-conciousness” Matt: “some of us” *smirks* Me: *smirks bigly*

[@Master...deBater]

Wow...you guys smirked together...how touching!!!

[@johnpreuss5796]

@@Master...deBater lmao

[@lukeannett]

And neither of you have any evidence of that claim.

[@susanbaker8130]

A P Smirking as a substitute for thinking and speaking honestly. Bigly smirking, more so.

[@OTBkid]

Get a room.

[@greatunwashed9116]

This was a very telling exchange. D'Souza led the conversation but Dillahunty effortlessly interjected with the most reasonable and pragmatic responses. Stupid people can talk a lot but intelligent people can respond momentarily and prove their worth. Dinesh was the rough. Dillahunty was the diamonds in the rough.

[@bestdjaf7499]

Dillahunty is a very smart guy. I was a big fun. But his feminist wife ... & His views on Feminism destroyed the whole movement. He destroyed the Atheists movement.

[@bestdjaf7499]

@Trolltician C'mon man. Dillahunty is sharp. And give me the timestamp example when he was illogical. P.S. I don't like Dillahunty, but the guy is sharp. And he has debated like thousands of Christians. Even if he was stupid, he knows all the questions & answers on the subject.

[@theshapeexists]

@@bestdjaf7499 I listen to dillahunty for his atheism views, thats it. Just because you disagree with different aspects of his life doesn't change the validity of what his show or debates are about, which is atheism and logic. I totally disagree with him on some things, but who gives a shit? We all have differences

[@bestdjaf7499]

@@theshapeexists I don't listen to him anymore. I was a part of the Atheism "movement" before 2011-2012. The time when the Right was pushing Creationism. And then Intersectional Feminist came. They are as illogical as Creationists. They don't even claim to be logical. The same with COVID & wars.... We know how vaccines work & we know about heard immunity. ... Ok, I used to call myself a Progressive. I was in TYT Army & I was following Dillahunty... TYT start pushing Syrian War & Dillahunty pushed Feminism & SJW crap * Just saying that Dillahunty is bias. But he is a smart guy. So I am blaming his wife. I think they are divorced anyway.

[@MrTheclevercat]

@@bestdjaf7499 Atheism isn't a movement.

[@LtColVenom]

Paradoxically, D'Souza has an easier time with the Hitch because Matt is really well trained into debunking arguments and their structure. When he tries to derail into 'common sense' and emotionally loaded analogies, Matt remains cool as ice and demolish whatever BS comes his way with methodical pitiless precision.

[@javierperwz3416]

LtColVenom even though Matt is better spoken, they both failed in the same way. Matt can prove climate change just like d’nesh can’t prove god.

[@edit8826]

Javier Perwz Didn’t Matt repeatedly say he wasn’t a specialist in the relevant fields? DD however is a professional apologist right?

[@ivespoken8902]

@Sparticus Booker i love Matt's fans all over the comment section saying Matt's argument and debate was way better. Me: umm transgender anyone, i like how they skipped the transgender debate when they got deep into the meat of the truth lol and then same with planned parenthood, they stopped and move forward from it and never look back like no one is listening lol Matt is a scam leftist with agenda he is more like a communist when i hear him talk.

[@GeneralSamov]

@@ivespoken8902 I'm beginning to think anyone with a brain is nowadays a communist. At least in a brain dead rightist's mind.

[@ivespoken8902]

@@GeneralSamov so AOC and Bernie is your anyone with a brain type of communist? lmao I'm going to pass on the communist group bye :)

[@levi799]

With Roe v Wade recently overturned Matt proved one of the very first points made during this discussion.

[@Grande79]

Roe vs Wade was unconstitutional

[@olemew]

Not really. Roe v Wade reasoning didn't make any sense. Also, you don't need to believe in God (I don't) to understand that all human beings deserve human rights, born or unborn.

[@tomasrocha6139]

Even RGB admitted Roe was a very weak activist ruling

[@RationallySkeptical]

Dinesh exudes a confidence that is unwarranted. And after the lies I've seen him spew in his documentaries, I have a hard time stomaching him. Dillahunty is a genius and Dinesh is just another shill. There's no human alive right now whose mind I admire more than Dillahunty's. Dinesh is also wrong about the polar bear thing. The person he mentioned may indeed be getting good numbers today. The problem is we don't know what their population sizes were in the past. None of the old numbers given were ever good data and accepted as fact. So regardless of what the numbers are today, we have no way of knowing if the population sizes are increasing or decreasing. Not yet anyway. I was disappointed more time wasn't spent on the god question.

[@cactusheart9632]

Damn. You're extremely limited then haha

[@richgilmour817]

I thought this was a debate about God? Maybe 30% was about that topic. Matt's strength is counter apologetics not politics, economics and social justice. Frustrating debate.

[@estinsidebottom]

@J w How Exactly Is Matt A Fool?

[@BigScewleo]

@J w literally your only response was name calling lololol This is what it looks like when you have no arguments and you know your position is wrong.

[@franzliszt4192]

@@estinsidebottom He made himself seem not as intelligent as he generally makes himself appear when he debated vegans......

[@skaarphy5797]

No matter what you do there will always be a dog in China that you will never meet. Somehow that makes me sad.

[@beaconoftruth1990]

😅😅😅😅

[@r0bbyinchins]

Matt's strength is this ability to clarify exactly what his opponent is trying to say.. Then after this opponent clarifies matt intelligently and systematically tears their position to shreads... Matt is among the best of the best and he speaks like they average person speaks... He is sharp as a razor and conveys his side with deadly precision !!!!

[@21divel]

Very sharp guy..... it's a shame he's on the wrong side. I think he will come around eventually. Hopefully.

[@r0bbyinchins]

You think MATT IS ON THE WRONG SIDE???? THATS FREAKIN HALARIOUS!!!!

[@21divel]

@@r0bbyinchins Absolutely.....so are you. So much evidence for the biblical account, yet ignored in favor of fables like abiogenesis and neo darwinian evolution. Hard to believe.

[@r0bbyinchins]

I guarantee we have different ideas of what the word " EVIDENCE" means... If you want to believe in childish retarded fairytales about talking snakes, virgin births & Jewish zombies without evidence then u go right ahead!!

[@r0bbyinchins]

@@21divel you must enjoy being embarrassed to admit you think that nonsense is true... so many idiotic mistakes and contradicting things in the bible it's laughable that adults actually believe it... Unless of course your a child then I can understand your belief..

[@gbeaver57]

De’Souza’s brain is just jumping from one prageru video to another.

[@HappyHippieGaymer]

Garrett Williams omg that’s brilliant! He did sound like a mess of pragerU videos. Pathetic

[@TheBenballs99]

He's so damn hard to listen to

[@HypnoticHollywood]

@@HappyHippieGaymer What's wrong with PragerU?

[@obeb787]

@@HypnoticHollywood almost everything!!they are not reasonable and commit atrocities in the logical realm

[@CommieApe]

@@HypnoticHollywood Theyre misinformation spreading hucksters with an agenda of intellectual regression

[@mattrispinmusic2893]

Needs the moderator to keep D'Souza on topic. Matt is extremely patient having to sit through this...

[@bilbobaggins4710]

You're a racist

[@davidgn40]

@@bilbobaggins4710 you're not funny

[@bilbobaggins4710]

@@davidgn40 all you big brains here Hahahahha believing sophisticated biological beings came from chaos with no purpose for being... Believing climate change bullshit...Seems you're all not so big brained after all ... Climate Denier ... Racist...nazi... Homophobe... Xenophone ...All lefty Marist labels and all designed to divide and conquer the native populations in the West...So glad I'm on the right.. the right is right 😁 good day now, stay healthy there genius

[@Bububixby]

@@bilbobaggins4710 wtf did you just say? All I heard were straw man's. Can you clarify each point you made?

[@Felddagryph]

@@Bububixby The Executioner is a troll, don't feed the trolls. It's pretty obvious he's just spitting out nonsense to get a reaction.

[@cornsail]

Matt: It's not rational to believe in God without evidence. Dinesh: Yeah, well about that.... [10 minutes of rambling]... so my point is, if trans people are so sure about climate change, why do so many of them choose to live near the ocean?

[@brie1026]

Lmao

[@fapman7789]

@@brie1026 Best comment. Made me LMFAO!

[@fatherjoe1134]

Theory for God - We humans are nothing more than a swirling vortex of particle energy with a higher awareness than germs, plants and animals so if humans exist then it is possible if not probable that God exist

[@stylis666]

@@fatherjoe1134 LMAO Nice salad. Do you have any croutons? I'm missing the croutons. My turn! :D Potential is the deeper meaning of science, and of us. We grow, we grow, we are reborn. You and I are pilgrims of the infinite. We are being called to explore the galaxy itself as an interface between truth and hope. New-age Bullshit generator - sebpearce.com/bullshit/

[@fatherjoe1134]

@@stylis666 - LOL YET you never disproved my claim.... Everything I said is 100% true and supported fact which supports my claim for God :)

[@eloz9726]

Matt was patient … Dinesh was driving me nuts. Well done Matt. 👍

[@chrispfeifer7628]

Me too! He's got a condescending way about himself

[@chrispfeifer7628]

It's like he keeps thinking he's going to get him with some information he's spewing. TBH, I already had a low opinion of him so that probably weighed into this

[@vanguard4065]

give us a specific example

[@vanguard4065]

1:55:08 he loses half his train of thought at the mention of Trump. what an intellectual coward and weakling.

[@lindseyroy1629]

You though he was patient? I thought he was kind of rude.I thought they both did a good job though.

[@bms77]

I don’t think Dinesh even listens lol

[@therandomraving7490]

Dinesh: "I have a long winded analogy, where I will state your position multiple times.." Matt: "I didn't say that, and where is your evidence for the position you claim.." Dinesh: "Hmm.. Interesting.. Let me change the subject with another non-related analogy where I will state your position multiple times.." -- Repeat for 2 hours

[@RockMonster1000]

That is exactly what happened. I feel like there was a reason Matt didn't go on the attack to demand a syllogism, because he usually does. Probably has to do with Dinesh not knowing how to make a logical argument. And also this was a paid gig with instructions. My attempt at mind reading :) sue me for a dolla.

[@RockMonster1000]

Perhaps a carefully crafted debate.

[@clearsingularity]

Thanks for saving me the time.. I might listen to it sometime. Not tonight.

[@therandomraving7490]

@@RockMonster1000 I was sooo waiting for Matt to attack more.. but he seemed happy to let Dinesh waffle contradictions to his own points

[@garywright9715]

The Random Raving.... You have a point that is pointless. Your critique is short and misses everything. Damn, one born every minute.

[@weave_of_k]

Discovering Matt just recently gives me newfound hope and a sense of confidence to humankind and kindness

[@eduardosantana8300]

I really used to look up to Matt. Followed him for years. Even this debate was enjoyable until D’Souza mentioned trans. After that Matt’s brain appears to dissolve and the demagoguery begins. He’s willing to lie (he has made the argument against gender ideology before) about statistics and appeal to fallacies in order to pander to either his friends (he’s dating a trans woman) or the crowd. I never thought I would watch a debate with dillahunty, and come out thinking he was a clown.

[@weave_of_k]

@@eduardosantana8300 interesting observation, I can see what you mean about Matt being partial to trans rights because it affects him through the person he is dating/friends. I was not aware of this but it doesn’t change how I feel about him.

[@cloudshad0ws]

@@weave_of_k conversely, he's speaking to a man directly partially responsible for the genocide that's happening to trans people. Maybe that elicits a stronger reaction than repeating the same anti-theist arguments he's been making for 30 or whatever years, or trying to explain logic 101 to someone who is actively refusing to understand (or at least pretending to). Regardless, I didn't see any fallacious reasoning on Matt's part, but if I'm being honest, I paused it before the end and probably won't finish it so maybe I just missed it.

[@KZSoze]

@@eduardosantana8300Congrats, you disagree with someone on a single issue. If you find yourself ever agreeing with every last position someone has, you might need to self evaluate what’s going on. What specifically is Matt lying about?

[@eduardosantana8300]

@@KZSoze I disagreed with Matt many times before. Your strawman isn’t necessary for a conversation. What I dislike, is not having a different position. It’s having double standards. Matt does not accept anecdotal evidence in determining what objectively true, unless we are talking about gender identity. Matt is lying about the suicide rates.

[@leehogg6248]

Matt is a great, honest debater. He doesn't try to set traps like this religious opponents do. Terrific to see 👍

[@thizz707gr]

Lol bcuz the guy just denies everything. He literally doesn't believe in truth. He's stated multiple times that he doesn't care about truth.

[@Apistevist]

@@thizz707gr Truth is a meme for small minds. When ever I hear someone talk about having the truth I know they're a midwit at best, litmus test failed.

[@thizz707gr]

@@Apistevist so is what you said a true statement?

[@Apistevist]

@@thizz707gr It's called an opinion snowflake.

[@thizz707gr]

You can't even answer bcuz you'll refute your statement. If it's your opinion that means you are not correct about what you said and you admit to it. That was easy

[@AwakeningWarrior]

I love how Danesh is going on and on and Matt's just looking at him like, "wtf are you talking about you're not even responding to what I said" LMFAO!!!!!

[@crisjunfan2139]

He's looking at him like that because he can't follow a linear argument. Dillahunty is getting way too much exposure by trying to ride the coattails of people like Peterson and Dsousa.

[@nicolas4601]

@@crisjunfan2139 Sure... that must be why... 🤣😂🤣

[@Keira_Blackstone]

@@crisjunfan2139 lol I would never in a million years watch a speech by Peterson or Dsousa, but I've watched both of Matt's debates with them because I like following him. So from my perspective, he's the one giving THEM exposure.

[@noctiel]

I'm amazed with @dineshdsouza, even a dice would have more right answers than he had... His level of wishful ignorance is trough the roof.

[@draxxthemsclounts2478]

This isn't twitter. You're not tagging the man here...

[@azayzelderegis1655]

Dinesh: “Your position would be like me spending my whole life talking about unicorns” Matt: “It would be, except you don’t live in a world where the vast majority of people believe in unicorns and are trying to legislate what other people can do based on what they believe the unicorns want.” 🎉🎉 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 Matt highlights the ridiculousness of religious people right at the start, sets the tone for the rest of the debate.

[@mikerodgers7620]

Are you a parrot?

[@azayzelderegis1655]

@@mikerodgers7620 Are you a bot?

[@mikerodgers7620]

@@azayzelderegis1655 Why would I be a bot?

[@azayzelderegis1655]

@@mikerodgers7620 Just because you’re predictable.

[@mikerodgers7620]

@@azayzelderegis1655 I speak the truth. I guess the truth is predictable.

[@Thetimrobertson]

Imagine if they debated God. That would have been interesting.

[@AlkebulanLion67]

Lmao!

[@Mia-ep4zu]

Exactly. This was garbage.

[@OolTube02]

Belief in God is merely a symptom of lack of critical thinking skills. And they're debating about a foundation of critical thinking. So at least as far as I've watched the thing by now I don't consider it a waste of time.

[@mvsawyer]

It'd be a one-sided debate.

[@mytmouse57]

Depends on what you mean by “God.” But... OK.

[@EnoYaka]

"who would pay me to come up with climate change breakthrough proving it wasn't real?" Fossil fuel industry for one

[@anandsuralkar2947]

Right trillion doller industry

[@Mutex50]

I'm really surprised that Matt didn't go there

[@Ericwvb2]

Yup basically if you are a climate scientist willing to trash your reputation and start publishing papers (which will get shredded by credible scientists) you will have an endless supply of cash coming to your pockets from the oil and gas industry. D’Souza purposely conflates the billions to be made providing products and services to deal with climate change with the not at all large amounts of money to be made researching climate change. Does he think all these scientists toiling away in universities studying climate science are becoming rich?

[@zynnfindo4776]

“These climate scientists are corrupting and influencing our government! They are getting rich while being subsidized by the American taxpayer! I mean just look at all these wars in the Middle East over oil... 😬 damn stumbled right into that one”

[@AngelinaB20]

Eric van Bezooijen if the king of climate change Barack Obama actually believed this nonsense, he wouldn't be buying a 15 million dollar mansion on the coastline But he is buying that mansion because the value of that land and that home are not going to be effected by propaganda pushed by the media. The home insurance on the house would be unaffordable and frankly uninsurable if the claims of sea levels rising were actually true. archive.is/ORhhh Matt Dilahunty is the kind of guy that likes to smell his own farts

[@unicyclist97]

Dinesh just changes the subject every time he realises he's lost. He changes the subject a lot.

[@javierperwz3416]

Joel Pearson as far as I know Matt proved climate change like d’nesh proved god. They both can’t prove a negative.

[@Avenger222]

@@javierperwz3416 The heck? There is data showing climate change is real. There's no data showing god is real.

[@Avenger222]

@@javierperwz3416 Science changes over time, my dude. Predictions can be inaccurate. If a prediction the past was inaccurate, does that mean what they predicted can't happen in the future? Or does it simply mean their initial prediction was inaccurate? Does that all of a sudden invalidate all the data and science surrounding it? Don't worry, my dude. I'll wait for you to answer ;). [edit: Javier deleted his comment, so the comment I'm responding to no longer exists]

[@javierperwz3416]

Avenger yes predictions can be inaccurate. That’s exactly what a preachers says. If it’s established science according to you. Why is it not so predictable. All you say is “it’s established science and we know climate change is going to kill all of us but we don’t know when or how or anything concrete. And they haven’t failed once! They have failed since they started with the climate change bullshit! Name one event that happens because of climate change.

[@tjhatley7550]

@@javierperwz3416 really? Shall we examine the data? agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

[@Pangburn]

¡Suscríbete a nuestro nuevo canal en español! Our new Spanish channel will feature professionally translated voice acting & dubbing for all Pangburn Live Discussions. Please subscribe & share with your Spanish-speaking friends! ¡Esperamos que disfrutes! kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqjMcqZ-npWBoJY

[@archangelarielle262]

Get Dinesh to debate Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) on Climate Science, because Dinesh needs to be educated.

[@pseudonayme7717]

He's a republican, they have no need for education (seemingly)😄

[@kaidongnie2389]

YES!!! On the other hand Dinesh would never accept because he's can't Gish Hadfield with faulty data.

[@flywire76]

Brock Hill I was thinking it would be great to see @potholer54 to do a response video to that section of the discussion.

[@MrMcwesbrook]

@Achilleskneel if you are interested in climate change you really should watch potholer54's videos. He talks about data and provides sources for everything he says, and you can look into those sources yourself. I love when people provide sources because then I can look at the data myself and make my own decisions.

[@sshender3773]

And get Matt to watch them so he doesn't look like a complete tool. It's the same thing with him on his call show. Pick up a fucking book and defend it like you defend evolution which is another topic not directly related to but attacked by religious people. You've feigned ignorance for long enough. Someone with a direct access to Matt needs to sit him down and have him watch Potholer54's vids

[@RockMonster1000]

Dinesh came here to debate god, and chose the tactic of talking about everything else but.

[@AlkebulanLion67]

That was the alarming reality. Dinesh brought a political gun to a theism fight.

[@villaessaouira]

is more interesting in 💰

[@mytmouse57]

His worldview is highly politicized. IMO, nothing shuts down truly rational thinking quicker than marrying one’s mind to an ideology - and that’s true regardless of where one stands on the existence of God, or lack thereof. If the atheist here seems particularly clever, it’s only because he’s up against an astoundingly weak and poorly argued set of ideas. Put him up against the likes of the late John Hatcher (author of “Logic and Logos”) or a Jesuit professor of logic and debate, and he probably won’t seem so cool.

[@Etazoz]

Matt changed the topic just as much, for example changing the topic to climate science. I'm not sure why you specifically singled out Dinesh.

[@zenon3021]

@@Etazoz to show what a fruitcake Dinesh is. He's a sad example of the strong correlation between religious believers and conspiracy theorists.

[@metalman4393]

1:03:35 "I'm just a toad in a human body". - Dinesh D'Souza Couldn't agree more.

[@MsArtemis64]

The look on Matt"s face when D"Souza finished that stupid analogy. Priceless!

[@Rob_Jacobs]

I love when it took Matt a second to shake off the stupor from listening to that travesty and say “Because I’m not a busy body and what people want to do is none of my business”

[@mikevigilance6914]

@mary jean yea ur right. Matt thinking people can identify as a Toad and we accepting as a societal norm isn't stupid. The irony

[@juanlinares5182]

D'Souza is completely outclassed. Matt is so good yet I'd wager he's wondering why he's wasting his time with D'Souza.

[@eliazruis4761]

15:24 is where DD derails the whole thing and dodges the question with tons of wasted time. Matt would have hung up on this idiot on AXP.

[@jmile1653]

Trolltician lol “thinking people” ... go read your bible

[@ryan7562]

@Trolltician found the idiot

[@ga3124]

Hmm. Dinesh talks much but says little when he's supposed to stay on topic.

[@prissylovejoy702]

W A maybe because his every word is picked apart and turned upside down until his point is lost. The man can’t even use an analogy without it being picked apart. I’ve never witnessed such a poor debate.

[@avedic]

Yeah, but his jokes are just amazing. 58:17 "Or if you want a more mixed reaction...a cat." I almost waited for him to say "You know...a _cat?"_ Holy shit....that was brutal. I *_almost_* felt sorry for Dinesh by how HARD that joke bombed. There's just something weirdly off about his entire philosophy towards reality as a whole. It's like he's taken his ego and proclivities and mentally projected them on to the character of his god and the character of the entire universe. It's this strangely solipsistic religion where you make your god in your own image. But...that's honestly what I see happening here. Dinesh showed who he was here. He certainly did that. And I definitely noticed.

[@janetandtiff]

Dinesh had plenty of uninterrupted time to make his cliched, predictable, and immensely refutable points.

[@TangieTown81]

@@avedic Dinesh is the only one who attempted to understand the viewpoint of his opponent but everytime he would state his opponents position instead of confirming the position he would contradict every statement made only to confirm it when contradicting the clarifying statement. Question: "Your dating a woman...you could never really know what life with this person was going to be like, say, over the next 30 years....so this question of what it's going to be like is unanswerable with any high degree of certainty.....In making a decision of whether or not to be with this person yes or no; you are necessarily taking a huge leap of faith." Answer: "No....no. I have no plans to end this relationship and neither does she.....We went into it with this optimism that perhaps we would spend the rest of our lives together. And with the realistic notion that it doesn't happen....I am fine saying 'This is what I hope happens, I hope that I am with you for the rest of my life....but I don't have an unrealistic expectation.'" First of all, considering the divorce rate marriage itself is an "unrealistic expectation". And "hope" and "optimism" are characteristic of "faith". So what is the point of contradicting him with this pointless sidebar irrelevant to confirming that marriage is a leap of faith? And he does this the entire debate and it is intellectually lazy and aggrevating. He has no coherant argument so he never concedes any point he can purport to contradict on a shallow level. His entire rationale is shallow and sophomoric. His hypocrisy stating his own position as a contradiction to D'Nesh while confirming D'Nesh's statement makes clarification impossible and this is not a debate but an attempt to clarfiy an ambigous idiot which inevitably fails.

[@nathanduclos5045]

he does it to avoid answering the question which would show hes a dumbass

[@Uhlbelk]

17 mins in and the the tap dancing and tangents by Dinesh already feel dishonest and fallacious. No, those 3 questions we don't have answers for, have either no impact on our lives or are making unwarranted presuppositions.

[@clydemasterson1129]

I will say that he certainly seemed to be more measured and reasonable than I expected him to be. And not in the way that, say, Tucker Carlson has disingenuously been reasonable in the past. But, he seemed to actually care about being as careful with his words as he could be while expressing views Matt, and I disagree with (the transgender issues for example). I've fucking hated Dinesh for a long time, and this is the first time I think I've seen him be genuine, and not simply a pompous, moronic fuck.

[@ricabel321]

Clyde - Yes, Scum who are out on bail or parole often act that way.

[@clydemasterson1129]

@@ricabel321 LOL! Didn't see that coming.

[@ricabel321]

Clyde - Well.... Let's just say it was a Straight Fastball - Right down the middle !

[@johnbuckner2828]

I think the only people these questions would have no impact upon are those who simply eat, shit, breed and die without the capacity to stare into the abyss and consider the human condition... or maybe children who haven't yet reached that level of cognitive development. Most people have a very basic understanding of climate science and historical theosophy. I would say that until a person really digs in, their beliefs are probably based upon a type of Pascal's wager, bandwagon effect or some kind of yummy social feeling in their tummy...which currently seems to correlate with their political ideologies.

[@JustMushroomThings]

Dinish: "We can't trust climate scientists because large amounts of money flowing into climate science research" The latest church revenue statistics show that religious congregations in the U.S. take in around $74.5 billion per year

[@calimntgirl34]

I'm an hour in and Dinesh has monopolized 90% of the conversation....He is throwing everything he can at the wall and trying to make it stick...

[@DrummerJacob]

@34:20 - Listen to what he says right here. This guy doesnt even want to understand what Dinesh is saying. And you say Dinesh is monopolizing the conversation? I could provide 10 more instances of times when he purposefully tried to misunderstand Dinesh to create confusion. It's one of his techniques.

[@bogdanvojnovic989]

I agree with Matt on almost everything, but men are stronger than women, why let them compete just because someone feels like a girl, it doesn't sound fair. Otherwise, Matt destroyed Dinesh

[@jwickerszh]

"throwing everything he can at the wall" is what happens when he doesn't have a solid point .. sure this is a fallacy, but look at how many fallacies I can make..

[@dusty3913]

...and none of it stcks. It does leave a kind of skid mark though.

[@dusty3913]

@@DrummerJacob nope. What is happening (each time Dinesh opens his mouth) is Dinesh is so imprecise in his points, or so willfully mistating Matt's positions that Matt has to correct him...that is, when Dinesh will stop talking long enough to listen. There is one point in the debate where I was quite surprised at how long Dinesh was able to refrain from interrupting or talking over Matt. It was the only valuable contribution Dinesh gave.

[@mickael486]

Whenever I'm down on myself for being stupid, I just come here to watch Dinesh make a professionally complete ass out of himself. Dog Bless you, Dinesh. 🙏

[@knottreel]

Both speakers are doing an excellent job with their position; no asses being exposed, just differing opinions.

[@Mmmmilo]

@@knottreel except, you know, not at all. Even if I ignore all other bullshit strawman nonsense that Dinesh pulls throughout this debate, “I don’t have evidence but I believe anyway” is a monumentally ignorant and irredeemable position to take. That has nothing to do with opinion. Nothing at all. And, again, that’s ignoring all his strawman arguments, his transphobia and his litany of unsupported claims and fallacious non-sequiturs.

[@reneportillo532]

@@Mmmmilo I’m an atheist too. And I agree that Matt beat dinesh. No doubt. But when it comes to Matt and the transgender issue Matt is just another theist. Just as delusional. I rip Matt’s ass with few questions. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5DReINpgZlmmsk

[@Mmmmilo]

@@reneportillo532 you seem to be a bit confused about what “identity” is, and the difference between biological sex and gender. If you want, I can help you understand. Just let me know.

[@reneportillo532]

@@Mmmmilo Matt said specifically that a man can get pregnant. Also, if you identify as something you aren’t it just makes you wrong. But somehow leftist claim feelings is more important than science

[@knottreel]

I absolutely love this style of debate. Make it a conversation, no moderator.

[@adriancarreno4123]

It killed me when people laughed at Dinesh when he accused Matt of setting up a straw man when he did it all the freaking debate...

[@DyadintheForce]

I'd give Dinesh a cookie if he could finish a thought without interrupting himself and moving from analogy to analogy to metaphor.

[@j.j.savage9628]

I'd give him a cookie if he would at least keep his analogies concise and get to the effin point. These conversations move forward at a snail's pace. I'd like to see debates like this progress more efficiently, but there are so many rabbit holes!

[@goranmilic442]

@@j.j.savage9628 D'Souza's arguments are stupid. For example, dogs on Earth we don't know about. Reason I believe there are dogs I haven't saw is based on statistic probability, it's not a blind faith. Also, I would agree with D'Souza that you have to have faith to be in relationship, but that doesn't mean faith is a method of knowledge. Only way you can know are you in good relationship is observing during time, so your faith in that relationship can be true or false, which means faith is not reliable.

[@Redhunteur2]

Four years ago I asked him to finish a thought. He's still trying to finish answering it today.

[@welterknot8046]

I hope that I never hear Dinesh's voice again during my lifetime.

[@mmillennial]

@PARK Jesus is dead, lol.

[@comanche66100]

@@mmillennial Atheistic FOOLS thinking they have found wisdom.

[@comanche66100]

I hope I never hear Egghead's voice again.

[@comanche66100]

Very simple argument for convincing people that the theory of evolution is bullshit.

[@Hypergangnam]

@@comanche66100 Scientific theory of Evolution. Now say it slowly.

[@cinemuh]

Dinesh's lust for lib owning is totally ignored by Matt. He so desperately needed to drag this debate into the Fox News bubble to blanket himself from Matt's fact based logical and science based logic via conspiracy theories was typical right wing nuttery. Matt wisely didn't take the bait.

[@MrPhukawf]

It blows my mind how overwhelming the amount of religious speakers that also lean hard to the right are.

[@CourageToB]

he did not not take the bait. he just babbled nonsense.

[@elirien4264]

@@MrPhukawf Have you also noticed how many cases of mental illness is expressed through religious ideology? As in schizophrenics saying god tells them to do things--usually horrible things.

[@maniad1]

I don’t think Dinesh can have a straightforward conversation without being intentionally deceptive. The false analogy count is ridiculous

[@kingda117]

1:26:40 Dinesh admits he has no evidence for an afterlife existence but asserts it anyway.

[@bilbobaggins4710]

You're a racist

[@andrewfairborn6762]

@@bilbobaggins4710 please provide evidence of this?

[@markalexander-warne3807]

I also think that Matt is right. "Why not live by the beach while I can?" Maybe their focus is on short term. Perhaps they are in their 60s + and don't really care about 50 years from now.

[@prabhakaranjeyamohan4579]

May be they don't know actual science or conspiracy theorists

[@Rob_Jacobs]

I’ve met people who are like “I actually do believe in climate change, but what do I care, I’ll be long gone”. So that is FAR from an absurd argument Matt made (not implying you made this argument, Dinesh kinda scoffed at it)

[@BassByTheBay]

1:27:19 - No, the height of foolishness is acknowledging the utter lack of evidence but still saying, "Therefore, God."

[@LukoseJoseph007]

A die-hard Christian/Believer, who prays for salvation, preaches love of god, vouches on morality, is also an a-hole who doesn't want healthcare for everyone. This is a true mindfuck. Belief is rooted in power dynamics and NOT any friggin holy cow.