🏅 Top traders

Imagine having a debate resolved in favor of the guy who literally fled, given that he had ZERO refutations towards Andrew's opening statements. The amount of cope from Matt's simpy fan boys who are most likely subscribed to Matt's boyfriend's only fans is absolutely hilarious. Andrew won this debate on every metric you can fathom.

@JudahGuerrero The debate was resolved based on whether audience members changed sides after hearing the arguments. Evidently, Andrew was so bad that he convinced someone to switch away from his side without even requiring arguments from Matt.

Also, I didn't actually see any coping from Matt. I saw a lot of coping from Andrew, insisting that he only lost because the audience was biased against him, even though the debate was structured in a way that makes that impossible. And I'm pretty sure calling everyone who thought Andrew's behavior was disgusting "Matt's simpy fan boys who are most likely subscribed to Matt's boyfriend's only fans" is the definition of cope.

@JosephNoonan 1. Likelihood of people reinventing their worldview in one debate is only true when there are pockets of uncertainty of whether or not it is consistent within their respective worldviews, if not, then they would either exclude and make room for why X isn't needed for said worldview, or they would concede. Changing someone's mind does not mean flipping their entire propaganda on its head and converting to Christianity, so audience "changing side" is completely meaningless because it doesnt change their worldview, it only adds are excludes for it, so it's meaningless.

2. Well so what? What does some random person we know nothing about who claims to be a "Christian" or on Andrew's side or doesn't align himself with human secularism have anything to do with Andrew's position? Sounds like more cope haha.

3. I wasn't aware that structuring "in a way" would have any effect on what people's internal biases are. Did they ask the audience to leave their innate biases at the door before attending? Did they ask the audience some questions and then got some concrete answers through some psychological analytical nonsense? Wow I didn't know that attending events magically made people impartial with zero ulterior motives to what drove them to a debate of IDEAS. Crazy 🤣

4. Let's be frank. Andrew had an argument, his argument was simple: You see, just like Matt's opening statement, Secularism bad and Christianity good. Debate over 😂. Secularism allows for these absurd conclusions because secularism is just a tautology, good is good because people should be good, therefore secularism is good. That's all he said. How can you bake an edible cake if what you've been given is shit ingredients? This is what Andrew had to navigate through and still managed to not only win the debate, but had Matt running away to his beloved husband. Now please, cope some more for me will ya.

@JudahGuerrero

I wasn't aware that structuring "in a way" would have any effect on what people's internal biases are.

The way they performed the vote was to have people first vote for who they think is right at the beginning, and then vote again at the end to see if anyone has changed their minds. This means that whatever biases people have are already factored in at the beginning. Andrew claimed that he only lost because the audience was biased against him, but this is evidently not true because the people who already agreed with Matt at the beginning already voted for him at the beginning. He was clearly just being a sore loser.

Wow I didn't know that attending events magically made people impartial with zero ulterior motives to what drove them to a debate of IDEAS.

This is not even remotely what I was claiming. Did you even watch the debate to see how the vote was held?

Andrew had an argument, his argument was simple: You see, just like Matt's opening statement, Secularism bad and Christianity good.

"Secularism is bad and Christianity is good," isn't an argument. That's the conclusion that he was supposed to be arguing for, but he didn't. He just insisted that what he believes is true and refused to give any justification for it.

This is what Andrew had to navigate through and still managed to not only win the debate, but had Matt running away to his beloved husband.

How can you accuse other people of coping when you are trying so hard to convince yourself that really, secretly Andrew won the debate, even though he already officially lost? The fact that he made Matt leave does not reflect well on Andrew, as you seem to think (and it is pretty laughable if you think that he was running away because he thought Andrew would crush him - a quick google search will show that he's debated much smarter people than Andrew in the past, and he didn't walk out on those debates). Andrew managed to be so unrespectable and say so little of substance that his debate opponent walked out on him after the opening statement, and he somehow still managed to lose the debate. What does that say about Andrew?

Now please, cope some more for me will ya.

You literally made a Manifold account to complain about the fact that Andrew lost the debate. And then blamed it on ridiculous things like OnlyFans. Who is the one coping?

@JudahGuerrero your choice to knowingly label Matt's partner as the opposite of her gender shows that you're a butthurt bigot. You're not actually infavor of Andrew, you're so loathsome of Matt because you're an ignorant bigot. Do better.

Is it actually true Matt walked out of the debate and this was resolved as a win for him?

@FriendlyMerc Yes, I just watched it and I can see why. Matt at least made some arguments in his opening statement, but the other guy didn't make any arguments at all. He responded to every question with, "I'm telling you the truth," and was an asshole even to the audience of the debate. So I think it makes sense that they would vote against him.

I would say it was the most atrocious debate I've ever seen, but I don't think it even qualifies as a debate.

@JosephNoonan then it should have been nullified instead of decided, by this logic if someone walks out of the debate they still win if the guy whos stays is "asshole" a laughable standard, should not have been decided for one or the other

@FriendlyMerc It was resolved based on a vote of the audience though. I agree that in this case it makes more sense to say there was no winner than that Matt was the winner, but it did meet the resolution criteria.

@JosephNoonan why are you lying?

o7

resolve?

I wish someone would call him out for his lack of decorum.. you can be right and still be wrong because of how you went about being right

Shout out to the audience for grilling this idiot

"i don't think the questions we have from online are substantive or related" lol

If anyone's reading this, a question for Andrew: You seem to have a very aggressive and confident debate style. Can you elaborate on the benefits and costs of this? Is it worth pushing hard if it means people aren't willing to debate with you? I do think some on the left go too far in the other direction, and refuse to make important points because it makes people uncomfortable, but ... is there a balance we can find?

Dude denies reality because he's bigoted and transphobic...

Matt did the right thing. Andrew is a disgusting narcissist who doesn't care about exchanging ideas and learning. He's interested in only his world view, his beliefs, and his cult. He's an arrogant man and his career will eventually fall because of this. Mark my words. You're not in this for the right reasons...you're a radical. You're a bigot. You're a woman hating, egotistical, misogynistic, tiny little man only interested in screaming how right you are...not in changing hearts and minds.

@DianaFee 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Who could have predicted this

What's happening, I'm not even watching as I bet 😅

@Joshua Matt walked out. Dude made no case for the subject of the debate just went on about his transphobic views. lol