Friday, March 17, 2017

Matt Dillahunty, Great Debater


I'm calling Matt a great debater, because "master debater" lends itself to a crude reading.  It's unfortunate, because it's a great phrase--perfect for sarcastic effect, except that it comes (ha, ha) with a crude connotation.  So I'll not call Matt a master debater.

Apparently, debating is his thing.  Now, how in the Sam Hill can Matt have a career as a debater when he evidently can't tell the difference between an ordinary statement or question and an argument?  I picture someone having this conversation with him:

Other person: Hey, Matt.  What's up?
Matt: Well, that was a brilliantly thought-out argument.  You're off on the right foot, genius.
Other person: I was just asking....
Matt: Ah, the "I was just asking..." fallacy.

I was reading a post by someone whose Matt Dillahunty experience lasted longer than my several-nanoseconds encounter, and he reports that Matt interrupts, reads into things, and hangs up.  So I'm glad I experienced the three-nanosecond version.  How much you want to bet that Matt is one of those master thinkers who can only clean up when he's writing both his part and the other person's?  I'll bet the farm.

How can someone who can't debate form a reputation as a great debater?  (Notice I didn't say "master...")  Isn't that kind of like people with no psychic ability to speak of making a living as psychics?  So far, all evidence points to Matt being a complete phony.

I need to clarify, of course, that all psychics, as far as we know, are phonies by definition, at least if and until psychic powers are demonstrated to actually exist.  In the case of Matt, however, we know that debating skills are a real thing.  Logic tells us I can't possibly be the first person to suspect he doesn't possess any.


No comments: