wasnt even close Matt walked all over him

Notice how Eric kept making these nonsensical aha statements. And he kept trying to shift the burden of proof.

eric demanded the vote. not matt.

I thought that was that guu

Actually Matt did at the end of the call but he was being sarcastic

pretty ironic coming from an apologist, that part just took the shit out of my pants.

***** 1:9:34

A better argument for believing Paul would be the fact that he never knew Christ because he was crucified some 20+ years prior; thus had no "observable" evidence of such a man existing per se; that being said, the vision and conversion experience MUST account for Paul's extensive and thorough theological prowess which of course, was infused knowledge via the Holy Spirit; I myself have experienced something similar..Paul knew Jewish customs inside and out, being a Jew himself, albeit a Roman citizen of Tarsus..No one expounded on Christ's teachings and had revelation like Paul, not even his predecessor Gospel writers except maybe St.John or Peter--scholars say the Letter to the Romans is such a theological masterpiece that it is said it has converted atheists by the thousands..and that is just one letter..Paul's letters take up 1/2 the New Testament..that should tell you something, but not only the quantitative factor, but it is what is contained in those letters is why we should believe Paul...what he spoke was prophetic and only prophets received the supernatural grace of infused revelation in the Old Testament..ie Ezekiel Isaiah, Jeremiah etc.. Recall Paul and Peter in Acts: "And this teaching has been given me, not from men, nor through men, but through Jesus Christ, who spoke to me out of heaven, who also has sent me to preach, saying to me, Go forth, for I will be with you; and all things, as many as you shall say or do, I shall make just. Nero said: What do you say, Peter? He answered and said: All that Paul has said is true. For when he was a persecutor of the faith of Christ, a voice called him out of heaven, and taught him the truth; for he was not an adversary of our faith from hatred, but from ignorance. For there were before us false Christs, like Simon, false apostles, and false prophets, who, contrary to the sacred writings, set themselves to make void the truth; and against these it was necessary to have in readiness this man, who from his youth up set himself to no other thing than to search out the mysteries of the divine law, by which he might become a vindicator of truth and a persecutor of falsehood. Since, then, his persecution was not on account of hatred, but on account of the vindication of the law, the very truth out of heaven held intercourse with him, saying, I am the truth which you persecutest; cease persecuting me. When, therefore, he knew that this was so, leaving off that which he was vindicating, he began to vindicate this way of Christ which he was persecuting." Swallow and dissect these words and discern their significance to Matt's Paul question...

InZanyty101 Haha..did you even read the comment or just briefly glance it over and think you'd actually formulate an educated rebuttal? Pathetic atheists begone from my sight.

InZanyty101 I'm waiting for your rebuttal, can't wait to hear it...

He doesn't even know what a Arg from Ign means!! He just think he's being insulted.

He's basically saying "If you can't give me a theory of everything, then I'll stick with what I believe". They use our ignorance as evidence for their god.

He's one of the worst I've seen. What makes it even worse is he seems to be very proud of his arguments; it's disturbing

Bertrand Russell said, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."

Dunning-Kruger gave that syndrome a name. :)

+Arianna Stone (Fenton) very interesting statement

I feel cheated that I can only thumbs up this once.

And the uneducated outbreed the enlightened presenting countries that are dumbing themselves down. Oh crap we are there.

RE:Think I think that if we listened to all of Eric's inane ramblings then we all lost...

RE:Think That's a bold strategy

+RE:Think Haha, I think I'm the only one that got your joke (that Eric says "gonna go ahead" every 5 seconds).

AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3 Im gonna go ahead with going ahead with saying youre right.

+RE:Think -- I'd be REAL surprised if everyone EXCEPT Eric didn't agree with you. What he calls "evidence" is nothing more than assertions of logical hypotheses; what he calls rational is mentally disturbed. He could have done this debate ALONE and lost....

Simply based on the “arguments” he presented on the Atheist Experience the consensus of scientists agreed that Eric does not understand how logical arguments work.

it's true because of the EVIDENCE........in the bible.

Gotta love that circular reasoning of using the claim to prove the claim!

+westingtyler Took me a minute, but I see what you did there... =D

Sorry i was a Christian and use to sound like an asshole

....but how do you know what reality is....... Can you measure love on a scale......exactly

Anytime I get asked to talk about God with my friends or family or anyone, this is one of the first questions I ask. I asked what would it take to show that you were wrong or something along those lines. Could you be wrong? Or if you were presented with enough evidence or information came out in the future that showed that the Bible was false or a scam or whatever. if they say there is no possible way they could be wrong or anything along those lines I thank them and I end the conversation there. Because if you are of the mindset that there's nothing that could change your mind no matter what then there is no point in talking to you. And it's so funny watching them get upset and butt hurt when I do that

Right, that sounds just like Kent, and Eric Hovind or Ray Comfort level of intelligence all three of them said the same thing. That shows closed mindedness.

He also seems unfamiliar with the meaning of "argument" - let alone the meaning of "premise".

Yes he is under the delusion that HERESAY from a really old mostly fictional book is actual evidence! smh Seethe thing is once a "Christian" is stripped of their holy book they no longer have anything to defend their belief! There are no external evidences of their claims

Nothing interesting, and centerly no strategy.

Nah, his "evidence" is that you already know that god exists. The same old I am rubber you are glue sort of argumentation.

Eric Can't spend money in an empty pocket.

I don't look at these debates as a win loss. Because you can have people like William Lane Craig who are excellent debaters and even though they don't prove their point and they just use a bunch of fallacies, no matter what they talk about they are just good at debating. Matt definitely got the best of this guy and this guy was definitely shooting for some one way out of his league but I don't watch these four wins or losses because even though I am an atheist I've seen atheist that have trampled over people but didn't have good points. The other person was just not a good debater. but Matt is very logical and he makes stuff easy to understand and he points out the flaws in people's arguments. And the problem with defending theism is if you were starting just to try and find evidence and follow it where it leads, you're not going to end up at God. you have two already assumed that a God exists in most cases to believe it. Because the evidence just doesn't point to a god. that's the reason that most of the best apologists around the world, are constantly using argument from ignorance fallacies or trying to use shit like the Kalam,that doesn't lead to a god, to prove their point. if you start off with the assumption that a God exists and then you try and twist everything to fit that, then you're going to have a reason to believe. But in most cases if you don't do that, you're not going to justify belief. I don't care about Wins or losses when watching debates. But Matt definitely had the better position of the two and better arguments

Matt may have won but he did a terrible job! He didn’t explain anything, he let the Christian get away with murder. The goal is to make the audience understand both that you are making logical points and that the opposition is not. You do this by deconstructing the oppositions points which Matt didn’t even take the time to do.

@@Boomer22z Okay boomer....wait...

@@Boomer22z Matt tore him a new one, sitting on both hands, phoning it in.

Yeah he did but I must say that he def got sharper in recent years and got better at exposing the other's argument. I would have liked him to combine the 2 answers the Christian gave to Matt's questions. How can a God simultaniously give sufficent evidence for his existence AND know the outcome of the universe and everything in it beforehand. That means he was aware that someone like Matt was not gonna be convinced by the evidence he gave and still chose to give the evidence that wouldnt convince him. The two ansers contradict each other completely

Eric also admits that nothing will ever change his mind, so it gets worse.

And after acknowledging several times that the burden of proof rested with him.

to be completely fair, so did your mom

Atheism makes vile atheists.

CauseAndEffect More butthurt 😢 You'll be ok... You'll be ok.

Tony Blackwell lol that’s right! He did call in! Lol The whole time I listened I thought he sounded similar to a caller on the show!! Lol wow

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nqqBatl0l6qap58.html I came here from there, figured I'd link it if you wanted to compare.

Shit I was wondering if Eric was the same guy that called into AE.

It doesn't matter to me who won, it's how people conduct themselves. Eric is an arrogant prick deliberately misunderstanding Dr. Krauss's words because he doesn't have enough science education to understand what he's hearing. A detestable human.

His appearance on Atheist Experience underlines that. He was SO full of himself, and SO certain that he was so much better than other theists, that he genuinely believed (and boasted) that he would beat Matt hands down in a debate. Then he turns up here, and fails spectacularly. What a dick

Reminds me of how Sam Harris constantly gets misrepresented for the same reason. Scientists, and smart people, are very, very specific with their language, and idiots twist their words so they can strawman them rather than actually addressing their actual views.

I’ve found that theists will often depend upon twisting and manipulating word definitions as well as pretending to invoke the scientific method whilst at the same time misrepresenting the actual science. Another common tactic is to claim they know what the other person’s position is. Apologetics is based upon interpretation of ancient texts which have gone through multiple iterations and then been then translated yet they will use the language in it to try and prove their point. They will say they are using logic but then use faulty premises to try and make their point.

A B I’m not convinced the misrepresentations are always or even usually made on purpose. I think it’s a failure of critical thinking skills and even just cognition in many cases.

Masha Spikego Eric Hovind is a master of playing such word games to try to “catch” atheists “revealing” that they are actually theists or deists.

Yo, what up DarkMatter?

I disagree with Eric, and I have heard all of his arguments before, but I actually think he presented himself rather well, I don't think he is a full time professional debater so I will excuse when he stuttered a little more then those that are more comfortable talking in front of people. he also seemed respectful during most of the debate I have heard so far.

Graham Skelly That's true, at least Eric was relatively well behaved here, I've seen him in his 'complete jackass' mode before too.

Graham Skelly I COMPLETELY disagree. First of all he says that in order to debate we all must accept several premises that he does not prove in any way whatsoever. That's not an honest person trying to have an honest debate. An honest person trying to have an honest debate would NOT require ANYONE to accept ANY premises without proving them as part of the debate. Also, this guy is SO frustrating. He's literally purposely playing games and playing semantics. His ENTIRE and ONLY argument is: "Matt can't prove me wrong so that means that I am right." That is the same as me saying that unless you can prove that Unicorns do NOT exist then that MUST mean that they do exist. You cannot prove a negative because for all we know Unicorns exist on some far off planet that we've yet to discover. This argument and way of debating is not only ignorant, immature, rude, frustrating, and absurd but it is also VERY disrespectful of the audience because you are assuming the audience is dumb enough to fall for your games, manipulations, and straight up lying bullshit.

davids11131113 so in conclusion no he did NOT handle himself well at ALL. I didn't even mention that he personally insulted atheists by name calling which is akin to what children bullies do. And the fact that he talked about archaic societal expectations of the genders barbarically. Men can care about their children and women can be the leader which is the opposite of what he says about men and women.

who is Eric I don't know about him?????

He has clearly watched way to many WLC debates and taken his ego and built it Up based off that lol

I think both are morons one believe in nothing else and the other one atheist of nothing I am with the forbidden knowledge key of wisdom not to argue with any human..

cs 51 I tried to derive meaning from your poorly written comment and could find hardly any (I get that English may not be your first language) but right off the bat “one believe in nothing else” nothing else what? What is the one thing they believe? And then “atheist of nothing” so according to that the other believes in everything? Both of those statements of yours are, first off, completely nonsensical and secondly, are impossible. I normally don’t comment much but I had to get that out because trying to comprehend your incoherent jibberish gave me a headache and made me question not only my sanity, but reality as well.

cs 51 u need help

See, this would have been the end of the debate for me. As soon as you demonstrate yourself to be so deluded, arrogant, and condescending as to think you can leap into someone else's head and pretend to know their positions and motivations better than they do, any useful dialogue has gone completely out the window.

I understand your displeasure, perhaps with the ease with which we on Facebook and the internet can troll one another, but I was also disappointed with Mr L's barely veiled suggestion all atheists are liars who deny their sure and certain god given internal knowledge of the existence of a deity. That, too, is insulting and presumptuous.

Maxx Kroes Hahaha!

Maxx Kroes Hahahaha! Brilliant!

I think Thor gives him intestinal disharmony every day ...

Lounsbery has always had terminal verbal diarrhea. Eight thousand words a minute, says not a damned thing. PLUS, he's a liar.

Chris A Eric made him look stupid. it didn't take much.

" I don't know how Matt kept his cool." He's used to morons... He has a live show where they call in all the time, you know... ;-)

Matt is cooler than the other side of the pillow. Eric seems desperate and not informative at all. He's very much in over his head with debating Matt.

Really Rich are you that fucking stupid ?

Premise 5) You're an idiot

Johann Swart Are you disagreeing with Ken, or agreeing with him and just adding a final premise for Eric’s logic? Your comment can be taken two different ways.

@Ken Walter Lol.

The Epirical Sexton agreed.. hat was a damn good opening

He’s currently writing a book titled “If I Was God”.

If he'd said "a universe from nothing" he might have at least come across borderline reasonable.

They all have to be. They all lie to children.

Isn't that a core value of any religious tru believer..that and lack of self awareness, specifically when attempting to defend their beliefs..

I read your comment before watching the video and I assumed Eric used these words to an hilarious extent but jaysus, it went from funny to absurd to straight-up maddening to listen to!

Conor de Buitléar I'm glad I prepared you for "The Hurricane"

TheReddaredevil223 hEricane

I've also got the tune "Rock You Like an Error-cane" stuck in my head.

Those dishonest kinds of arguments are just as easily pointed out as the innocently flawed ones. That's one of the interesting and valuable qualities of rational analysis, when you come to think of it. It really doesn't matter to the soundness of an argument what the character of its proponent might be. The argument stands or falls entirely on its own merits.

@@starfishsystems No, you misunderstand me. Its not the argument and its soundness, or lack of in this specific situation. It's that Matt was not going to debate him after he showed how he was not a good faith interlocutor, dishonest and a waste of time. Nothing to do with the argument itself and how it would stand up. It was that Eric didnt deserve the platform to present any argument after his performance on the show.

It's that argument from ignorance/incredulity, again! There is this concept of the circumference of ignorance. As our circle of knowledge expands the more questions, the more mystery arises and thus our circle of light is in contact with a larger circumference of the dark, of the mystery, of our ignorance. The only way for theists to survive the shrinking god of the gaps is to leap into the crack between the circle of knowledge and the circumference of ignorance. When science discovers a new frontier of possibility such as multiple dimensions, quantum mechanics or in this case the multi-verse, believers, new agers and the woo woo community latch on to the mystery. They seem to think "finally, science has caught up to the possibility that there is space in this universe for my supernatural worldview." As if "science has finally caught up with theology." They dive into the fringe of the new frontier and co-opt it into their world view. Using something like Krauss explaining that 'nothing' is inherently unstable brings up new questions and that is seen as an opportunity to anchor the god hypothesis to the new mystery. If believers/supernaturalists would just accept that god is a metaphorical place holder for the unknown they could accept that science is the process of exploring the mystery and discovering the truth. Then we could get on with humanity's greatest journey of exploration rather than holding us back. (BTW DarkMatter your vids rock the house).

Xentric Great explanation ! Yeah "science seems to be catching up to theology " is the funniest thing he said .

About labeling. Because of the ambiguity of the word 'God' the atheist might poke a little fun at the theist by saying, 'for all we know, a pixie created the universe'. Then the theist might say, 'well, then you're just calling God by another name'. But, the atheist could simply say, 'well, then you're just calling the universe by another name'. Just goes to show we're still stuck 'not knowing' and the theists are complicating matters. How much more time will we have to waste arguing with theists?

***** I don't know, man. The only justification I can think of about arguing about theism is that it might result in a paradigm shift in the common understanding of standards of evidence and rationality. Hopefully, that will result in some sort of progress that benefits the human race.

ParkerFriedChicken I think you make a good point. But I think it already has as shown in the Enlightenment. But, we're responsible to keep it going. So, I guess you're right. We need to keep on arguing.

But before he does go ahead, make sure he goes ahead and actually goes ahead first.

Did he go ahead or have to wait to go ahead to finally go ahead?

I'm sure you would agree.

It’d be too painful to listen to again but at one point he said, “let’s go ahead and go back”

Someone say head?

A Critical Essence Tech USA exactly. massive waste of Matt's time.

A Critical Essence Tech USA Its almost like evangelicals try and conduct a performance instead of evidence and the greater their performance the more likely god exists. lol

jason mathias Pathos and appeal to emotion is their strongest tool.

I’m going to go ahead and say Eric does not understand what evidence is and that the consensus of scientists is that Eric is wrong.

Some people don't realize the Bible is the claim, not the evidence. The claim cannot also be the evidence for itself. Seems simple enough, and yet...

Circular argument !

Because it's all he has.

because Christians presuppose that the Bible is the word of God and is perfect. You have to start with the conclusion that the Bible is correct and that everything in it should be believed and to him when he quotes it it's the same as people showing genetic evidence for this or that. He looks at it like reading from the Bible is evidence. Because he assumes that the Bible is true from the get-go. But the problem is he just continues to provide more and more claims he doesn't actually provide evidence for the claims. And that's why he got his ass handed to him so bad. I mean this was really really really bad for him. He did not do a good job at all.

That's all he has?, Clearly reality has nothing to offer as far evidence for such a ridiculous position

How can he think he did, yet KNOW he didn’t?

@@secularargument As much as "agnostic-atheists" obsess over separating knowledge from belief, it's clear many of them don't understand stand that all knowledge is belief. Just look at how many thumbs up this comment got. SMH... Even Dillahunty himself, despite peddling the esoteric "agnostic-atheist,gnostic-atheist,agnostic-theist,gnostic-theist" terminology set regularly states that knowledge is a type of belief as opposed to something completely separate. I don't comprehend how so many of these 'agnostic-atheist' people conveniently miss that.

I must admit I have yet to watch the whole thing. Might you have the time stamp for that?

That part of the conversation begins at 1:07:42 . At 01:09:35 Eric asks, "why would you believe anything without evidence?" So ironic.

Alright, thanks.

I paid a guy to shit in my mouth last month. He stole my wallet too. I liked the first part, not the last part.

@@Redpill-lv4it you liked it? User name checks out then.

@@Redpill-lv4it “If you can’t beat them with brilliance, baffle their brains with BS.” - BS artists/religious apologists/trump magats/anti-vaxers/gender critical science deniers/conspiracy theorists/poutine shills/brexiters/sovereign citizens/fear mongers/neo-nazis/sociopathic red pilled trolls all over the world

Wanna know how to sound less like a bot running on minimum processing power? Never write "XY won" or "YX lost" under a debate. Show the minimum amount of intellect and say "I think this argument was great/inadequate"

@@notlisztening9821 🤓

UniversalAtheism This is exactly why people shouldn't bothering debating people like Eric, Ken Ham, Sye Ten, etc. They don't care for truth at all and when it comes down to it, will deny the existence of reality rather than God. It's quite sad, to be honest.

That's why Matt debates to change other minds not his opponents

It’s because he’s the physical manifestation of dunning Krueger

"But you can't see my face, because no one may see me and live." Ex.33:20 ; "No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" Jn. 1:18

palmpervert Fuck off.

psalmsurfer1 "But you can't see pissurfer's face without dropping dead from laughter."

psalmsurfer1 The problem is that Paul's letters describing the Damascus road conversion completely contradict those two versus.. which isn't exactly uncommon when it comes to scripture.

psalmsurfer1 People in the Bible who saw the face of god and lived: Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, Enoch, Noah and his family, Abraham and Sarah, Hagar, Ishmael, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, etc etc etc Oh yeah, and everyone who saw Jesus' face....

What you described is actually affirming the antecedent :D affirming the consequent is: If X then maybe Y or Z or W X, therefore Y

@@vincentheartland2088 thanks for your contribution to the discussion! This is an easy one to confuse. To affirm the consequent is to say that the consequent is true therefore the antecedent is true. So, JMUDoc is correct in his assertion. www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirming-the-Consequent

@@DJHastingsFeverPitch Indeed. My mistake. Hey theists! See how easy that was?

Eric also commits what I think is a fallacy but I'm not sure if it is and I don't know how to label it. He presents the following argument 1. If God is false, then consequences 2. Therefore God is true. This seems fallacious, can anyone help me out?

@@DJHastingsFeverPitch If the consequences are merely _unpleasant_ (in his opinion) the fallacy is called "appeal to consequences". If the consequences are _logically contradictory_ then it's a legitimate type of argument called a "reductio ad absurdum".

AND THEN he has the audacity to interrupt Matt in his answers, when he just rambled on and on and on during Matt's time. Mother fucking theists suck.

***** It's hard to believe in bullshit.... anyone who believes in anything without reasonable evidence is kidding themselves.... You might be ok with lying to yourself but that doesn't make it ok for you to encourage others to do the same... Your god is insidious and needs to be eradicated...

***** Whatever god it is that you believe in. They are all ridiculous.

Larry Barthel at 35:20 Matt can't keep his face straight when Eric mentions Romans 1, because he and everyone else know what's coming "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen... " yada yada yada which apparently means every tree and frog and waterfall is proof of the christian god and us sissy atheists are just suppresing this obvious conclusion.

Larry Barthel Because they're delusional. They know they cannot rely on credible evidence, logic, and reason. Someone once said "The bigger the lie, the more likely people are going to believe it". This same man also said "If you repeat something enough, it becomes true". Oh yeah, that was Adolf Hitler (Roman Catholic)

Too true. Also I have many evidences. Yes. I totally do. I could present them at any time, if I wanted to. I assure you. Believe me, I have so many evidences, bigly evidences, that you would be crushed by them.

+Mau Jo Lost how? Matt proved a Multiverse? And Matt knows with certainty there is no God? Matt has proven the origin of the universe was a natural event? Matt has Not proven anything!

5tonyvvvv And apparently you as well

Mau Jo Correct, I never said I could! Atheists have just as much blind faith and blind speculation as any believer! Matt has shown ZERO evidence for abiogenesis!! Abiogenesis is completely lacking evidence!!

5tonyvvvv No, apparently you also love to hear yourself talking.

paberry007 LMAO!! That's totally unobservable! And you are just assuming that time must have done it! Mix all the chemicals you want, you wont produce one single living cell...Demonstrate life arising from non life????? Lets see it if its soooo Highly likely!

Incorrect

GeneralZod99 expound please...

@@JonnieQuestsStars Here is a video with Eric Jewell in it. He sounds _nothing_ like Eric Lounsbery. They are not the same person. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rLlifqaKx9TIdqc.html

He probably changed his name because he was so embarrassed at his failure to debate Matt

Apparently the other book Eric read is titled 'Let's Go Ahead'.

It must have pictures in it too.

"How to Be an Expert in/at/on Nothing"...

There's more than one?... o.O

davids11131113 hahahhahaha!!!

His whole personality is agonizing.

It's because he just sat back and let him embarrass himself. I know that people have a hard time being Christian and admitting that there person got their ass kicked, just like atheists have a problem admitting that there person didn't do well. I have seen countless times where atheists have just not been good at debating or have not been good at explaining their point. Even if the other person was a joke, I've seen atheists just not do good jobs. But the thing is with theists, even the best ones still have to assume that their position is correct before they look at the evidence. They have to assume that there is a God before they can make their points. They try and shift the burden of proof and they commit fallacies galore. And that's what Eric did. The entire time he tried to shift the burden of proof and he tried to basically say if you don't believe in God you are lying. II that you do that, you've already lost. the only way you can get to the position that Eric has is by presupposing that God exists ahead of time and committing fallacies. Matt didn't have to beat him, Eric beat himself by talking

Heath Kitchen im going to try this. if you dont see another post on here then assume i failed

mm1b10 Good luck! I haven't found a buddy who can suffer through Eric's braying long enough to drink with me. But "go head" with my support :)

mm1b10 I'm going to go ahead and assume that you went ahead and the alcohol went straight to your head.

+Heath Kitchen I think we should "go ahead" and give that idea a shot.

I played this game and died of alcohol poisoning. It took me three whole days to come back.. well, 36 hours.

How I wish he'd attempt to demonstrate that, preferably from a great height.

Perfect summation

Wow wow wow, that's an argument for Allah, you are a Muslim!

Its sad that many people who believe they are debaters don't actually know how to debate and only want to hear themselves talk about what they think, over and over and over anyone else's criticisms.

dovregubben78 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😭😭😅

...and a cunning linguist.

LOL....

Best comment ever, I just had a good laugh at that

You're very welcome! Feel free to listen to more at Dogmadebate.com :-)

Brandy Madden Great debate, some old arguments and some new ones I haven't heard.

... and thereby proving your real god is fake, haha. well done Eric!

@@brandymadden3052 oh I totally forgot you have a podcast I haven't binged yet! Weekend. Plans. Made! Hahaha thanks for the podcasts.

I like it more when he can cut off the stupid before they dig themselves too deep.

He understands the debate format, and comports himself accordingly. A call-in show has a very different format.

ERIC WAS ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE....... MATT KICKED HIS ARROGANT AZZ.

TLDR