Trey broke about 32 mins in where Matt broke his script with a ‘I dont know’ and then it was Darth Darwkins all the way till the end

The debate was so bad, Matt is less reviewing it and more teaching Trey how debates actually work. Thank you for your thoughts, Matt. It sucks you had to deal with such a dishonest opponent.

The smug laughter throughout was like nails on a chalkboard. Kudos to you for holding it together as well as you possibly could. Within 10 min he would have gotten hung up on and banned from any of the Line’s shows.

My favorite part is when Matt said "we all lost this debate"

Trey claimed his argument has never been refuted but, as someone pointed out in the comments, trey forgot to bring the argument to the debate.

I have watched hundreds of debates since COVID started lock downs, as a way of keeping entertained and educated, and the debate against trey was the hardest to watch. He didn't present anything of substance the entire time, and was a jerk throughout on top of it. Matt was 10/10 justified in calling him a jackass.

I been waiting for this after that debate. Nobody should ever speak to Trey in any serious context again. He is absolutely dishonest and useless as an interlocutor

Trey “I am going to win this debate without evidence” Me “good luck with that” When Trey listed his first point with 4 options, I knew he lost.

I have watched you for 20 years from Norman, OK and I was born into Jehovah's Witnesses religion and I wanted to thank you and Tracy and a zillion others who made me feel like I was not alone, that the religious ppl are the deranged lol for believing in talking snakes, talking donkeys, etc It was hell when ALL my friends and family disfelowshiped me. Thanks again wonderful ppl!

Myself and other atheists have all interacted with Trey; and on each occasion he lied, denied, committed endless fallacies, and demonstrated his ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy. He is thoroughly dishonest, and incapable of having an intellectually honest debate.

38:50 Could you imagine an atheist asking a christian apologist to concede a point for the sake of helping them move their own argument along? The chrstian apologist would clamp on to that point and never let go.

It seemed like Trey’s method was more to irritate his opponent so he can claim a win based on their justified emotional reaction. He’s a terrible debater, and you gave him way to much credit in this analysis.

Matt respected the audience's time. Kudos for that

Trey basically bragged about his record debating, said his opponents whined, and ended up being almost as pathetic as Sye. He gave up when he realized his script wouldn’t work with Matt. 😂

I love when Matt comes along and steelmans his debate opponent's arguments. If they would actually listen to him, they could have so much more interesting debates (notice I didn't say 'successful' but definitely more interesting).

The more I hear of MDD debaters, the more I am convinced that Matt's interlocutors are there not to debate a topic, but to "get Matt". The double edged sword of being the "End Boss of Atheism."

I had the "honor" of encountering Trey in several Discussion Groups on Facebbok about 10 years ago. He is one of those that "Pigeon Chess" has been created about. However often he failed to actually make his point, he still struted around as if he won the argument.

Matt, Just Wanted To Say Thank You For Continuing To Educate On Logic, Critical Thinking and Reasoning Skills. It's Very Much Appreciated!!

Thank you. Was looking forward to this debate review.

Yea, fair enough. I mean, you’re the only one who was pretty much reeling back the debate onto its tracks again, versus Trey, who was going on about ‘are you real’ as if it really mattered. Kudos to you for at least entertaining his simplistic take on philosophy. You’ve just gotta love pseudo intellectuals who aren’t as smart as they deem themselves to be…like Jordan Peterson.

That guy was insufferable. Kept interrupting Matt, laughed every time Matt got irritated, then pretended he didn't know he was doing it

Wow Matt, I understood about 75% of this video and hope to try to learn more about the parts I struggled to understand, but I appreciate nonetheless! Your explanations and details are wonderful. Your debate with Trey was great on your part, abysmal on Trey's, and your video explains why so brilliantly.

Oh man, I remember hearing Trey give these arguments years ago. They've absolutely been addressed before, Trey just doesn't have the honesty/ability to recognize it.

I jumped in to this debate right in the middle. And it was, of course, at a point where I said to myself, "woah Matt! Turn it down a bit." but after a few more minutes of watching, I realized, "OK, Matt, I see what a pretentious, squirrely little prick you're dealing with, carry on." Thanks for this review. Excellent work considering the shitshow you had to work with, and has been mentioned in other comments, this is a great tool for teaching how a debate should actually happen.

Honestly, I have no idea how you managed to keep your composure in that debate. You sir are a better person than I!

I have the feeling that theists know they cannot win an honest debate with Matt and so resort to spoiler tactics and word games. Very funny but frustrating too.

Was really looking forward to some discussion on this. In my opinion, after about a decade of watching theological debates, Trey had the worst debate performance I've ever seen. Aside from not having any modicum of substance relating to the actual topic in his 'argument', he simply made a complete cock of himself with his behaviour. The mod had to tell him to stop interrupting and even had to mute him. He constantly laughs at things (and not nervous laughter imo, more just obnoxious condescending laughter. On being asked a question he very rarely answers, but whether he does or doesn't, he 100% of the time launches into an insane mish-mash of irrelevant preaching, anecdotes, pointless info, etc. etc. Anyways, rant over. I look forward to now watching the video, thank you for making it!

I asked the “could the evidence be better than it is question.” Thanks for addressing it, Treys response was very interesting

since the truth of christianity (the subject of the discussion) is based on the life of jesus as presented in the gospels one would think that the reliability of the scriptures is of paramount importance and hence refusing to provide actual pertinent evidence to that effect (of any sort) makes the whole effort pointless. philosophical arguments are not relevant to this subject matter.

It's almost like the dumber the person, the stronger their faith.🤷🏾‍♂️

Im impressed that matt keeps taking these debates against theists that domt understand logic, critical thinking or basic debate format.

I rarely watch these debates anymore… most Theists are simply not worth debating because they are only parroting boring arguments that have been refuted decades ago or only present baseless claims without even trying to present actual evidence.

Trey should have just said "uncle" and let Matt teach him a thing or two about debating a seasoned/ honest interlocutor.

7:34 Watching that bit made feel like Matt could present the apologists' arguments better than they themselves do. I'm actually kind of interested in seeing Matt play Devil's advocate and give a whole opening statement for the proposition that Christianity is true.

Presenters like Trey are the reason I unsubscribed from that channel, and won't 'like', 'dislike', or engage at all in the live chat or comment sections. That channel has all but directly stated they care more about generating activity than promoting actual honest substantive debate, and are happy to give a platform to whomever can cause the most engagement regardless of the quality.

Matt: “Muslim apologists are by far the worst.” Trey: “Hold my Bible.”

Steelmanning an opponent’s argument complete with tips for improvement shows a next level debating skill set. It’s almost like Matt was so disappointed with Trey’s weak argument he just took over for him to ensure a better debate. I won’t hold my breath, but I’d love to see Trey take these pointers and try again.

Hey Matt, stay strong! Dont stress yourself too much cause we have all the BEST atheist videos on KZfaq thanks to you!! GOAT Greatest Of Atheist Time yes yes!!

Trey has always assumed that if you don’t agree with his argument, it’s because you don’t understand his argument. The notion that his argument can be understood then refuted by a rubber band will never occur to him 😅

I'm amazed you kept your patience as well as you did. That was less a debate and more a frustrating game of chess with a pidgeon. Thanks for the review.

This was more enjoyable than that debate by a LONG shot.

I really appreciate these after debate videos. Its nice to to hear exactly why rebuttals work, flaws in whats being defended and sometimes what can be very obvious to some others may not find so obvious. This was a hard one for me. I could barely make it through the debate, because Trey was just infuriating to say the least. Thx Matt, for doing what you do!

Thank you for doing this review. I couldn't even make it an hour into the debate so this was helpful.

Trey came off as a troll to me. Especially towards the middle of the debate when he seemed to intentionally try to make Matt mad and was laughing about it.

His awkward laughter is just as cringy as his constant looking up at the ceiling. Or was he looking up to god for answers maybe

I think one of the most, amongst many, pathetic thing from Trey was when he asked the moderator what he thinks.

I had a discussion with Trey and he is so eager to force you to agree with his first statement he starts crowing victory before its even out of his mouth.

I reckon Jadlow was focused on getting your concession because his further arguments were built upon it. That may have been why he used the opening statement he did - other debators may have conceded the point just to avoid appearing unreasonable.

Thanks, I really appreciate these debate reviews.

The debate was fun to watch, despite his conduct. Thanks for the review. I've learned something new.

Well this was 1000% more interesting and edifying than the actual debate. Dude short circuited when you answered his question 'wrong' and it was all downhill from there. The whole thing was the epitome of "Never play chess with a pigeon."

The rubber band was the hero is that debate.

ironically, by being one of the worst debates ever it became one of the most interesting conversations in the QnA

I was absolutely stunned when Trey claimed that the evidence for the bible couldn't possibly be better. He had already claimed that one of the gospel writers was essentially unimpeachable as an historian. Wouldn't the evidence for the bible be better if *all* gospel writers were unimpeachable historians? Or even if just two of them were? Or even if the author of Luke-Acts had written simply one more verse? Wouldn't any of those scenarios be definitionally better evidence?

Debates can be fun but far more precise and powerful to have short written exchanges. There would be no interruptions, squabbles or evading and Trey's written sentences would be self defeating.

Truly a Trey-n wreck, well done for not leaving the chat room sooner...!

I love the first Q&A question. "No, I can't imagine a world without god. Because of the law of identity. That thing I invented, and Matt just debunked." 😂

That guy saying come up with another explanation, reminded me so much of the Matt Slick debate

I prefer these longer debate reviews. I like longer content.

I'm with Matt on that one if the person who you're debating doesn't address the topic in their opening give your rebuttal and leave.

I watched every minute of this debate Matt, and I was hugely disappointed and I felt he wasted all of our time. I am an Atheist, but this is an important question, and I'm open to listening and learning. It was not fair to you, the moderator, or the rest of the people in the audience that day and all views in the future. Some people will be disappointed and feel their future time is wasted. Btw, my wife and I enjoyed our time with you on the free thought cruise! I Look forward to the next event!

I really thought that Matt would have got up and left after hearing Trey's first rebuttle!

Thanks Matt. Trey is one of the most dishonest people out there.

Trey refusing to acknowledge his 'argument' has been debunked over and over again doesn't stop that from having happened.

He does not care about evidence and wants to debate. MDD is the appropriate platform for that silliness.

Trey was a joke, so was the moderation. The only time I heard anything remotely discussing "Is Christianity true?" Was when Matt would bring up the debate topic.

When it came to the 'could the evidence for Christianity be better?' question, Trey simply went into defense mode, just a tiny moment of reflection is all that's needed for it to be obviously true, there are thousands of things that could have been different even in small ways to make this so, but Trey just felt obliged to defend his faith come what may and reflexively said 'no'. A preserved original copy of the Bible, that's all it would take for the evidence to be better. The Hindu Rig Veda is much older than the Bible, so it would be quite possible for an original version of the Bible to have survived. What an absolute train wreck of a 'debate'.

Trey is a smug, incoherent man who embarrassed himself. What an unpleasant person he must me....I pity his wife and family!

I didn't see the debate, but this Trey guy sounds like a hilarious character.

The debate was tolerable….right up until Matt, rightly, answered “I don’t know” to one of Trey’s questions, then when Trey had to go off script, it was all down hill from there. Kudos to Matt for not standing up and walking away. The theist side is definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel with these pathetic apologists.

I watched this in the background while playing Blue Archive. Can't wait for a Wakamo banner

I wish I was the moderator in that debate - an hour in, or probably less than that, I would’ve forced Trey to actually address the debate topic. I would’ve kept muting him until he does

I think Trey was correct on the definition of "being". In the philosophical community, the term refers to all objects. Your distinction of agent was correct, Matt. Theism will propose God as agent. For physicists, there could be a non-agent being, such as fundamental particles or waves. It may be non-contingent in the sense it has always existed.

Oh i cant wait to watch this. Getting some popcorn :D

I watched the debate and was utterly appalled at Trey Jadlow's inability to present any coherent argument. Matt's review is absolutely correct.

My sincerely held religious beliefs caused me to commit many crimes against humanity, all the consequence of pretending to know things that cannot possibly be known. Pretending to know that... 1. an undetectable supernatural realm exists that is inhabited by undetectable, all-powerful, immortal beings, monitoring every human thought and act, justly entitled to micromanage every aspect of human existence. 2. I had a special intimate personal relationship with this supernatural realm that telepathically endowed me with knowledge of unknowable truths, including insight into the mind of the supreme ruler of the supernatural realm, and what it thinks and wants. 3. I had been ordained and commissioned by the supernatural world with the authority, and duty to do everything in my power to police every aspect of human thought and behavior as a representative and surrogate enforcer of the laws and regulations of the supernatural realm. 4. I had been ordained and commissioned by the supernatural world with the authority, and duty to do everything in my power to groom children into pretending to know the same unknowable, divisive, and hateful things that I pretended to know, thereby sabotaging their lives permanently, both intellectually and emotionally. 5. supernatural beings had commissioned me with the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict the thoughts, questions, facts, narratives, and realities children may entertain. 6. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban comprehensive sex education in public schools. 7. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to destroy the self-esteem of children who engage in masturbation, making them think they are sexual perverts. 8. supernatural beings had granted me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to deny women and girls access to contraceptives and abortion services, even if doing so destroys their lives. 9. supernatural beings had decreed that a fertilized egg, zygote, fetus, or unborn baby is endowed with exclusive ownership of and sovereignty over a woman or adolescent girl's body, even in cases of rape or incest, even if that fetus is unviable, septic, or dead. 10. supernatural beings had decreed that men are entitled to subjugate women and treat them as though they are chattel property. 11. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to condemn your sexual thoughts, desires, dreams, and fantasies. 12. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to regulate which adults you may cohabitate with, have sex with, love, and/or marry. 13. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to outlaw sexual conduct that does not conform to the undetectable supernatural realm’s standards of human sexuality. 14. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to destroy the lives of members of the LGBTQ community, including bullying LGBTQ children to the point of driving them to commit suicide. 15. supernatural beings had endowed me with the exclusive ethical moral authority, knowledge, and duty to recognize, challenge, and advocate for the shunning, imprisonment, or execution of anyone who dared to spread a blasphemous criticism of what I was pretending to know. 16. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict the teaching of certain scientific theories in public schools. 17. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive ethical moral authority and duty to do everything in my power to restrict access to certain genres of books, videos, and other educational materials from public schools, public libraries, bookstores, and the internet. 18. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban public school discussions of social justice issues and the suffering experienced by people who have been and still are oppressed by intolerant fascists like me. 19. supernatural beings had delegated to me the exclusive authority and duty to do everything in my power to ban the teaching of certain aspects of human history in public schools. 20. the supreme ruler of the supernatural realm was always on my side as I went about the business of visiting hate, discrimination, misfortune, hardship, oppression, suffering, and destruction upon those who resisted my efforts to correct them. 21. being tortured in a lake of fire for eternity is just retribution for failing to pretend to know the correct version, (my version) of unknowable truth. 22. when our ancient ancestors created their holy books, they did not include in them anything that they were pretending to know, things that they could not possibly know. 23. supernatural beings had informed me that those suffering, languishing in poverty, ostracized, or oppressed are responsible for, and deserve blame for every hardship they suffer in life. 24. supernatural beings had informed me that if you fail to dedicate yourself to a life of servitude to the supreme ruler of the supernatural realm, it is only because you have willfully chosen a life of servitude to undetectable evil supernatural beings. Please forgive me for posting this lengthy list of my crimes against humanity. Doing so helps mitigate my grief for having committed these crimes and may help others recognize the many dangers inherent in pretending to know things we cannot possibly know.

The definition of triangles does NOT include that the sum of the internal angles add up to 180°, even in euclidean space. The definition of a triangle is that it is a set of three distinct points in some space that do not align (there is no line such that all three points are elements of that line). In eucledean space, it can be *proven* from the parallel postulate (which is not a necessary requirement in any space) that the internal angles of a triangle do in fact add up to 180°. So it's a consequence and not part of the definition.

My summary of this debate which I also posted on the debate video: Trey attempted to get Matt to agree to an extremely flawed framework, set of rules/logic, right out the gate so he could attempt to trap him later but being as brilliant as Matt is he saw it right away, tore it apart and the debate was essentially over as that's all Trey came there with.

21:20 I think that's slightly wrong, the reason we use triangles in computer graphics doesn't have to do with efficiency. It is because computer graphics cares about what angle something is at compared to the camera and light source(s). This math is only really possible with planes, and triangles are useful because they are a set of points that define a plane. If you want to go all the way back to how we do math on computers, you could talk about efficiency there

Trey started with nothing made some assertions about what will be said in advance to poison the well and that was his best bit😂😂😂

A statement you made at the beginning made me chuckle. "I exist because my parents had sex." Neither of my children can make that statement in the strictest sense of "sex". Both of them exist because of modern reproductive science that doesn't rely in any way on some notion of a 'god'..

Good stuff Matt. Trey was an awful interlocutor. Have you considered debating one of the more "moderate" (they are not but less terrible) muslim apologists like Javad Hashmi or Khalil Andani? I know you aren't asking for debates but if it is offered to you... please consider it. I think not only the followers of extremists could need a little bit of education.

Heard about it on "The Line" in chat so I will check this out.

I love that Matt gives a better version of his opening. Which guarantees that he will never use it, haha.

Trey was so frustrating to watch. Blatantly manipulative, gaslighting, the laughing and dismissive attitude when you pointed out how he avoided answering questions.. His performance was embarrassing

I actually audibly laughed out loud when he suggested that the evidence could not POSSIBLY be better. That’s so preposterous that laughter is the only reaction, not even a continuation of debate, it perplexes the rational mind too much to think thats a possibility.

Hey Matt, can you do a video on how you overcame your fear of public speaking. Something a little different 😮

Defeated by ... a rubber band.

That guy was low and seemed really lost a lot of the time. I’ve realized that some people vehemently hate “I don’t know” as they want you to take a position so they can shift burden of proof which is also dirty. He also wouldn’t stop talking and kept interrupting and then said he didn’t know he was interrupting, that was a crazy watch

It seems that a lot of the disagreement was just due to a misunderstanding of what Trey was saying. He said, "All that exist is [one of the four options]", meaning the entirety of everything that exists, not just any thing that exists (like the elastic band). I don't really think it makes his argument much better, but if it was clear, it might have made things less awkward.

That was painful to watch. I hope we get more honest debaters in the future, at least some that are less focused on their record, or winning, and that are actually interested in bouncing ideas off each other, to create something interesting.

Listening to this debate review made me suddenly think a question. Why didn't Jesus write the Bible? If you want to tell me your book is the word of God and Jesus was God... then why didn't he write it while he was here? Particularly because if he had foreknowledge he would know we atheists would find much deeply lacking in the Bible.

Trey saying that he's never lost a debate is primary evidence (or proof or whatever, English isn't my first language) that he just defines things into existence. Which was mentioned at a point in this "debate". If you define a debate into something that nobody can ever lose, for example, then he's never lost. Tada. I honestly think he thrives on the parts where he can laugh and say that the opponent fell into his traps. He gets some sort of satisfaction out of the arguing. I don't know what he believes or not.

Keep up the good. Dr.

Matt, I'm pretty sure that when Trey says "a being", he always just means "something that exists". You should have asked him to clarify it, the moment he introduced a new word into the discussion.

Kant said that the basic propositions of geometry and physics are synthetic a priori.

that debate was... i dont even know... frustrating...

He was like Darth Dawkins of his argument.

Probably worth putting a clause in your debates that YOU get to have the first statement. At which time you can point out all of this and what needs to be talked about and what not. Etc

To factually or evidently prove analytic propositions requires reverse engineering the formation of the concepts used to empirical data.