Has he ever lost a debate?

I didn't ask him shit

Sure bro. You seem really salty that he banned you for being a faggot and a retard. What was the question?

>Sure bro. You seem really salty that he banned you for being a faggot and a retard.
wow nice AD Hominem

imagine being prompted three times to provide the question and not doing so because you know the question was retarded as fuck and Jay rightfully banned your faggot ass.

i was finding the video baka
not very christian of you to talk to someone like that baka

youtu.be/NvUGpO1CoaQ?t=92

heated religious rivalry could become a cultural spark for Christianity and get people interested in the doctrine. Dyer should participate in inter-Christian debates.

it's Contrary to "christian" doctrine
If you had faith god will work through you.

>flat earth
cringe. you sound like a faggot btw.

Also imagine these people are so well-known they don't need an introduction.

>flat earth is cringe
prove it wrong then.

>implying the burden of proof is on me
heh rofl

>apparently watched 22 minute long video in 4 minutes

you called it cringe

youtube.com/watch?v=vYsbMr_vuiQ
kek he got reked before as well

Aurora Australis wouldnt exist on a flat earth.

Dyer is great. He’s probably the single best guy to give to a normie who is open to being redpilled. And forget the Christian stuff, just listen to his podcasts on globalist books.

obvs i skipped around and heard you sounded like a huge faggot and also that it was about flat earth so i closed the tab. waste of time just like debating Calvinists.

Yeah and you're claiming the earth is flat so the burden of proof is on you. feel free to make a thread here or better yet here proving your case.

there's no working definition or mechanism for light
the corpuscular theory of light was refuted a long time ago
>obvs i skipped around and heard you sounded like a huge faggot and also that it was about flat earth so i closed the tab.
so you didnt even listen to it kek
>waste of time just like debating Calvinists.
nice genetic fallacy
>Yeah and you're claiming the earth is flat so the burden of proof is on you. feel free to make a thread here or better yet here proving your case.
running from debate then? onions boy desu
and for the third time that's not me

>Dyer should participate in inter-Christian debates.
He does all the time. I think he debates other Christians more than atheists or other types of theists actually. Here's his most recent debate with a papist

youtube.com/watch?v=jho6MaLwmKE

Saw it, it was good. It was pretty intense. You need to know the lingo to understand the points they were making.

I was surprised that they both remained civil. Jay and Matt both have extremely high confidence levels and can get aggressive.

They should do a follow up in a few weeks.

>running from debate then?
Yeah I have no interest in debating schizos and retards on flat earth and this thread isn't the place for it. Nice attempt at derailing though kike.

Yeah Matt was seething during that last half though since he knew he was getting BTFO. The guy entered a debate without knowing that you automatically assume a position in doing so.

>Yeah I have no interest in debating schizos and retards on flat earth and this thread isn't the place for it. Nice attempt at derailing though kike.
another ad hominem kek

youtube.com/watch?v=Hd2uICRds2w
youtube.com/watch?v=rQoPiv91Cmk

Lol did you see the debate with the Uniate! That dudes was litterally crazy. Lost his shit. Pretty easy debate for Jay.
youtube.com/watch?v=2FnLfRY1_rY

if the orthodox church is the true church why did god allows it to be overcome by muslims and catholics to this day??

kek

Every bit of Jay's material, goepolitics, philosophy, and theology is fire. As another poster stated, you need to have a basic understanding of philosophical and theological concepts to follow what it is that he is saying, and a lot of it is too dense for me. Can't recommend him enough. His comedy is hit or miss though desu

Attached: EBi5pGDXkAAbRW_.jpg (1280x1500, 218K)

huh it's odd god promise to preserve his people and said the gates of hell shall not prevail over them

Attached: file.png (800x600, 772K)

>Yeah Matt was seething
Oh, no doubt. My point was that it was a lot less hostile than other recent debates I've seen on YouTube.

They both mangaged to be gentlemen.

I think Matt isn't used to engaging someone of Jay's erudition, nor someone who understands how philosophy informs each decision we make, nor someone who understands that each of us acts upon certain presuppositions.

Why did God let St. Peter get crucified? St. Stephen get stoned? Christ die on the Cross?

>an individual is the same as a civilisation and a church
nice moving the goalposts

>the gates of hell shall not prevail over them
They didn't. States get invaded. Christians get killed. Schismatics cut themselves off. The Orthodox Church is still around.

>I think Matt isn't used to
He is, he's been doing this a long time and has interacted with plenty of Ph.D.'s as well as other presuppositionalists. But like they said in the debate those presuppers are pretty trash compared to Jay and even though this wasn't Jay's best performance it was obvious that Matt was outclassed as he didn't even know half of what Jay was talking about.

>moving the goalposts
Not at all.

Did the church end when the pagan Romans killed off followers in droves?

Answer this:
When did the Orthodox Church cease to exist?

Oh right, now it's EXTREME INTERNET BLOODSPORT KUMITE SMACKDOWN

Millennials=faggots

Introducing Alain Soral, he never lost a debate and it pisses off every french guys on this board everytime he gets mentionned.

Attached: Screenshot_20190828-214549~2.png (1440x786, 482K)

>They should do a follow up
Way more interested in seeing a second debate with Dr. Malpass.

youtube.com/watch?v=iYTutm3YOpk

Their first "debate" was barely getting started and since then Dr. Malpass has completely owned Jay on his blog:

useofreason.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/a-transcendental-argument-for-the-law-of-non-contradiction-i/

useofreason.wordpress.com/2019/06/09/a-transcendental-argument-for-the-law-of-non-contradiction-ii/

kek you literally got raped and sacked multiple times by foreign invaders and god allowed muslims to rule over your lands
i don't think that's being preserved it's god punishing you
>not at all.
yes it was you conflated individuals with states and the church
>When did the Orthodox Church cease to exist?
no but it's been overcome multiple times in history
Expansion and peak of the ottoman empire (1453–1566)
Sack of Constantinople (1204)
Fall of Constantinople (1455)
Battle of Kosovo (1448)
Battle of Varns (1444)
Battle of Mohács(1526)

>no but it's been overcome multiple times in history
>no but
>no
I rest my case. Thank you for completing my argument.

The gates of Hell did not prevail.

"And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." Corinthians 12:9

youtube.com/watch?v=LtAexVHRVBA

>>if i discard 99% his argument and straw man him i win

everyone loses sometimes

That wasn't a strawman. I got you to admit that the Orthodox Church prevailed in spite of those things. Run along now.

>The gates of Hell did not prevail.
they raped you women and ruled over you for hundreds of years
>prevail
verb
prove more powerful or superior.

Southern Israelite made like a 20 part series calling him out at this point. He will never debate Southern Israelite. EVER

Chad Orthodox vs Virgin Atheist

link dat shii

he bans him and runs he has no arguments

youtube.com/watch?v=NvUGpO1CoaQ&feature=youtu.be&t=92

>Has he ever lost a debate?
He switches to "debate tactics" whenever he has troubles. Always wants to draw back to something his opponent is not familiar with.

Sometimes interesting, often no better than Destiny (who relies purely on tactics). Needs to "win" every debate in order to keep his rep going.

Clearly since he was once a Catholic and once a Baptist the only way he could have never lost a debate is if he incluides sophistry and cheap debate tactics as winning.

Then it's possible he can think he never lost a debate, but in reality he has. He recently fared poorly against an athiest.

>no interest in debateing schizos and retards
Ad hominem. You aren't even smart enough to be in this thread dumb shit.

the amount of people Southern Israelite converted from jay shows well his doctrine stands up
his mentally malformed he thinks Ad hominem is a from of argument

>Yeah Matt was seething during that last half though since he knew he was getting BTFO. The guy entered a debate without knowing that you automatically assume a position in doing so.
Jay did not prove anything valuable from whatever that implies.

Justin Martyr, c. AD 150:

And when you hear that we look for a kingdom, you suppose, without making any inquiry, that we speak of a human kingdom. Instead, we speak of that which is with God, as can be shown from the confession of their faith made by those who are charged with being Christians, even though they know that death is the punishment awarded to those who so confess. For if we looked for a human kingdom, we would deny our Christ, so that we might not be killed. We would try to escape detection, so that we might obtain what we hope for. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off; since death is a debt which must at all events be paid.

>Justin Martyr, c. AD 150:
MUH SAND MONK FATHER
GIVE ME A QUOTE FROM THE BIBLE

He refuses to debate Vaticancatholic.com because he knows he'll lose.

Actually any claim requires proof. The proof of earth being a globe is shakey at best.
You also have to prove it is a globe.
The only claims as to the earth's shape that don't require proof are claims of indifference to its shape.

He's lost a debate with me by instantly banning me when I asked him one question on a live stream.

is that you drake?

>GIVE ME A QUOTE FROM THE BIBLE
I did. Read above.

Those same "sand monk fathers" created your Bible.

Then again....you're probably using the Masoretic OT, so you're not even using the same one they did, but a newer, kiked version.

>kiked version.
Christ was a jew why the contempt?

Jesus Christ was a Catholic. Kikes are jews who deny Christ

The Masoretic was modified by the Jews to remove prophesies about Christ.

Your OT is also missing entire books.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

Who's drake? No Dyer was doing a stream about female comedians not being funny 'because they only talk about sex which is disgusting'. Through the stream Dyer was joking about sex. I asked him "isn't that hypothetical?" He got all triggered, called me an SJW and instantly banned me!

I was interested in exploring our (human) contradictions not criticising him. And this dude fancies himself as an intellectual! What a joke.

* Hypocritical. Fucking auto correct.

>I was interested in exploring our (human) contradictions not criticising him. And this dude fancies himself as an intellectual! What a joke.
He holds himself back with this shit. Could do a lot better. Instead he fantasizes about Youtube suppressing him. But he tends to wreck anyone who gives him feedback. So he has a hard time improving. For that reason he kinda is a lost cause but I still find some of it interesting.

Really found the Orthodox vs Catholic debate interesting and wanted them to go further with it, but he had to lose his patience. Instead of just ending it they should have just realized that at that point both were tired, one was trying to repepat himself, and the other was losing patience with that.

Just take a break or continue another time.

>Catholic
>Satanic
Pick both

Jesus was Confessional Lutheran

No. And the recent one where he debated one of Richard Spencer's people wasn't even a debate, it was a mauling.

>No. And the recent one where he debated one of Richard Spencer's people wasn't even a debate, it was a mauling.
Which one of Spencer's people did he recently debate?

A calvinist, too. He's gone through at least 4 different Christian denominations.

You're right that he got shown up in the latest debate with that atheist. He couldn't answer a simple question that struck at the root of his position, and instead wasted an hour wringing his hands and trying to redirect the conversation.

Ultimately he isn't very impressive, just very proud and dismissive. If you read any of his essays you will seriously question his literacy.

Lutherans go to hell.
Repent.
Vaticancatholic.com

Most of the so called "truthers" are great to listen to to expand your mind. But they also tell lies, untruths and turn out to be egomaniacs.

>If you read any of his essays you will seriously question his literacy.
This. The guy literally and unironically wrote a grad school thesis called "Numbers Prove God" lmfao

Think he lost to classical thiest but I can’t remember for sure

Mark Brahmin

All these people want to talk about his personal views and ignore the meat and potato analysis of the globalist books. Jay and James Corbett are the only ones Ive seen come the close to assembling a bibliography of all the 'sources' Alex Jones vaguely references.

Attached: 1566964134358.jpg (598x465, 187K)

>Has he ever lost a debate?
Imagine Jay in this great illuminating conversation?
youtube.com/watch?v=6XPQK1nDxIU

I cannot because he has to make everything about winning, and that is sad.

If his opponent is confused about something, Jay will actually be happy because that means he can claim that he won.

Does he name the Jew though? I've tried watching a few of his videos and it's all just Christcucking like a faggot about muh Jesus just in a pseudointellectual way. Is he redpilled on the JQ and the Holohoax? Doesn't he also make a living off of reviewing kike movies from Hollywood?

-Check the list of author names for the books he has reviewed
-He reviews movies as a segway into how media is being used to debase society and push an NWO agenda
-Negative on the JQ

>Dashes and not meme arrows
Yikes. Anyway yeah obviously anyone who does any sort of work on globalist elites will end up compiling a bunch of kikes but that doesn't necessarily mean he's redpilled on kikes. What has he said about the Jew specifically?

I think he lost against Ybarra. He certainly made an absolute fool out of himself by being rude, gish galloping, and completely ignoring the topic being discussed. If you make Ybarra lose his patience then you're the one in the wrong. Of course the Jay Internet Defence Force took it to the comment sections to amplify his rude and obnoxious behaviour. Jay is generally good, but he's totally unhinged when it comes to Catholicism or Thomas Aquinas. His entire argument against Absolute Divine Simplicity is predicated on the existence of a chaotic Christian God that can do whatever He wants and not a Thomistic God that is essentially cosmic order that is at least partially intelligible by the human mind and whose origins you can infer from the natural processes He has actioned.

>Mark Brahmin
I cannot find it.

>I cannot because he has to make everything about winning,
Matt himself is guilty of this with the same two people in that video. There's a video where they're literally teaching him basic philosophy and he's just being a contrarian faggot and thinking he's one-upped them. Matt Dillahunty is a cringe little faggot fedoracuck boomer.

>I think he lost against Ybarra.
That was a weird debate. I expected Ybarra getting rekt and ragequitting from the title of the video but at the end it was clear that Jay just couldn't handle it.

If you think Dyer won that one, I really don't know what to tell you. It was an embarrassing display, he couldn't stick to the topic and was just throwing vile insults without justification.

The debate was a pointless waste of time, it was infuriating. Ybarra was there in good faith sticking to the point and Dyer was "YEA BUT WHAT ABOUT FRANCIS HUH??". Despicable. I think that the only way Dyer would've """won""" that one was if he indeed made Ybarra ragequit and took it as a tacit sign of concession.

Granted Ybarra was being sort of obtuse but I don't think he was doing it on purpose. Jay was just disrespectful and it wasn't a good look for him.

I forgot to say this... it's funny how Jay Dyer feels so comfortable bullying a fellow Christian who is a literal nobody on the Internet yet he's all reserved and polite to a shitfuck like Dillahunty just because he's a big name. I like Dyer, but sometimes his behaviour is absolutely despicable.

The thing is he wasn't. He was sticking to the point. They only reached a stalemate because they have very different fundamental presuppositions about the topic and Jay instead of trying to resolve it was just fast forwarding several centuries to virtue signal to his orthocrowd how Pope Francis is just the absolute worse, amrite or amrite guys? Ybarra wasn't taking the bait and Dyer lost it because he's irrational hateful of Catholicism for whatever reason. He's at his absolute worse when he's debating Catholic, he seldom cares about proddies because, as always, they're Rome's problem and not his.

no but he's never won one either.

>>I think he lost against Ybarra.
>That was a weird debate. I expected Ybarra getting rekt and ragequitting from the title of the video but at the end it was clear that Jay just couldn't handle it.
They were both tired and Ybarra was mad that his intended line of attack didn't really apply so he resorted to repeating himself and how he thought the debate should have gone.

it would have been very interesting had they just put a bookmark in it and moved on to papal infallibility some other time.

It was very educational. Very interesting.

>If you think Dyer won that one, I really don't know what to tell you.
What was wrong? Dyer says that the Orthodox system is one that is robust and can handle errors. It's sort of decentralized. He's contrasting that to the papal system.

At that point we need to go into papal infallibility but Ybarra kept trying to repeat something that was irrelevant. Dyer is allowed to have a religion that believes some of it's prophets/saints were not perfect.

Until we see them talk about papal infallibility and other issues we cannot evaluate whether catholicism can handle its errors. Is Catholicism a self-contradictory system? We have to see. But the debate ended.

>I forgot to say this... it's funny how Jay Dyer feels so comfortable bullying a fellow Christian who is a literal nobody on the Internet yet he's all reserved and polite to a shitfuck like Dillahunty just because he's a big name. I like Dyer, but sometimes his behaviour is absolutely despicable.
Yep. The debate was great but Dyer must have felt like it was not. It was fun to me. He shouldn't have blown up liek that, but Ybarra should have stopped repeating himself.

Both should have recognized it was time to either take a break or just stop.

>yet he's all reserved and polite to a shitfuck like Dillahunty just because he's a big name.
That was probably the most disappointing part of that debate. That could've easily turned into a huge shitfest for our amusement if Jay had thrown the gloves off and started triggering Matt. You could tell Matt was already on edge. Yet he was civil about it. With Ybarra he was just nasty because he knew he could get away with it.

What seemed to happen is that Jay got frustrated at Ybarra not understanding the argument. Something about the Catholic paradigm requiring the authority of the pope and this not being compatible with the nous concept or something. It seemed like Ybarra was trying to nail him on a double standard without understanding that he couldn't because Orthodox and Catholics have a different understanding of what constitutes authority and truth from an epistemic standpoint.

>that he couldn't because Orthodox and Catholics have a different understanding of what constitutes authority and truth from an epistemic standpoint.
They were tired. Ybarra came with a lot of thought and research and what do you do when you're dead tired after delivering a great set of evidence for your cause using "their own saints". It was a great attempt and very educational for those interested about church history.

Really their combined knowledge leads to interesting conversations and I fear that neither of them realize how interesting it was. I want to see at least another debate an Papal infallibility. If it gets to people repeating themselves just take a break. If they get back and keep doing it, then either try to break again or just end it.

People need time to rest or they start repeating themselves or resorting to debate tactics. People need to be able to think. Over the course of the debate prepared arguments and thoughts run out and without time to gather new ones or consider the new evedence presented by the other they inevitably end up talking past each other.

tetrahedrons are not mysteries. aside, why is an appeal to a fallacy the con-man's greatest deflection? because he cant make an appeal to logic. pointing out fallacies doesnt explain how refusing to debate a calvinist means anything bad at all. you didnt explain that, merely implied it without defining the point or supporting it.