About That Debate | Trent Horn

Welcome welcome.

Thank you so much for watching this particular video.

If you are brand new to this channel or this ministry.

My name is Nate Sala.

I'm the president of a Christian organization called wise disciple and here at wise disciple We're all about living

effectively as Christians in today's culture.

Now if you like Interviews videos like these where I sit down and talk to other

Apologists or theologians then definitely let me know in the comments below we can make this kind of stuff happen.

So hopefully these materials and resources will benefit you, but I'm not gonna waste another moment.

Join me as I sit down and chat with Trent horn.

Trent horn is an adjunct professor of apologetics at Holy Apostles College.

He serves as a staff apologist.

For Catholic answers, you can hear him on the radio show Catholic answers live as well as his own podcast the Council

of Trent.

This is very clever.

He's also the author of nine books including Answering atheism how to make

the case for God with logic and clarity.

Trent horn.

Thanks so much for joining me.

Thank you for having me Nate.

Well, I'm really happy to be chatting with you and I'm pretty sure I said this like on a video I

made recently but you have to be one of the best apologetics debaters I've ever seen.

So it's a real treat to have you with me.

Well, thank you that's very kind and that that means a lot coming from someone who has a debate background like yourself.

Well, I.

Want to get into your background.

Actually, this is why we're having you come on.

I want to chat about Debate with you.

I know my audience has been talking about this a lot more like, you know How to debate tactics debate

strategy stuff like that.

So if we can let's go all the way back to young Trent horn.

Tell us a little bit about your background.

Did you did you do any debate in school or was that like later on?

Yeah, here's what's funny.

I've never taken formal debate classes or debate training.

So I've never I'm familiar with Lincoln Douglas debate and what are called like forensics.

Though those kind of debates is very interesting.

They're really focused more on technical skill.

They're not really focused so much like when you do debate in high school or college.

It's not so much about persuading a layperson as it is.

Amassing a technical amount of points in a competition that you're you hit an argument.

You didn't drop an argument.

So if you go online, so I'd encourage our viewers who probably watch.

Maybe you watch a William Lane Craig debate or one of my debates look up high school Lincoln Douglas

debate and it's so very different from when you see like the debates that have been reviewed on your channel because

people will get Up, and they'll talk a mile a minute.

And this is their point that was assessed by my opponent.

Because their goal is just let the judge know.

I hit all my arguments.

I replied to every counter argument.

I didn't and there have that, you know these different techniques so when I do debates my goal is obvious that's not

my goal my goal is to present the gospel to present the truth of the faith and My goal

especially is to reach people who are on the fence because every time you do a debate.

Unless the other person just starts convulsing and vomiting and passes out.

There's always gonna be a group of people that says that guy won no matter how badly he does they're all he's always gonna have or

she's always gonna have loyal defenders that will say that they won and Same for me unless I just like convulse and

start vomiting people will say that I won even if I did a kind of a crummy Job, but there are those people in the middle that I

want to that I want to reach.

So my background.

I.

Yeah, I wasn't trained in forensic debating.

The only training I got I did this pro -life ministry called justice for all.

And I would go out to college campuses to dialogue about the issue of abortion.

We would set up these graphic image displays.

We would talk to students.

One of the activities that we did was we would have an open microphone session.

So we would have a microphone and ask people hey, who wants to talk to us about the issue of abortion and people would come up and that was

my first chance of Essentially the cross -examination period of hearing an argument live.

Analyzing it for weaknesses and trying to help the other person see they have an inconsistency and so it was kind of a trial by

fire and then these things would also happen with atheism and then other issues when I was on campus, so

That's really where I learned a lot of these these techniques and study.

Was one from doing that when I was on college campuses the other in my own conversion experience studying.

Other debaters people like like William Lane Craig, for example, though.

Trying to add my own particular Responses and style because I think

it's great to study if you would love debate.

Because you might be able to watch your channel.

I want to do debates like that's great.

But what my encouragement would be don't don't be Trent.

Don't be Trent Horn.

Don't be William Lane Craig.

Don't be Nate solid be You but you understand the rules of debate and you have your own particular

style.

That's what's really important.

That's good.

That's actually great advice, you know.

Because on top of everything else that goes into debates and in a second I was

gonna ask you a little bit about your prep and and what that looked like but you know you you do need to

work to your strengths and.

You know one of the other aspects of being a good debater is developing, you know what's called your ethos pathos logos and.

Having that connection with your judge slash audience because in informal debates is the audience is the judge, you know.

So yeah playing up on what's what you're good at and if you're a little bit more on the humorous side like I am.

You know using that to your advantage.

That's really good.

Yeah, I think that's important because as I've done debates and what you brought that up about logos ethos and

pathos or basically Logic emotion and authority You know to understand why should I believe what

you're saying that when you do a debate?

Whoever you are understand who you are play to your strengths and Understand your weaknesses.

So for example, I would say that when people do debates.

There's this just popped in my head to see if it makes sense to you.

There's kind of an inverse relationship between Likeability and

Aggressiveness so you can have some debaters.

They're very likeable but They may and I think I might tend towards this more than

other people.

I mean, I'll toot my own horn started the pun there, you know.

There's some people that are very they're they're like bulldogs.

So we might this might come up with talk about other people that I've engaged and so they come with a very aggressive Assertive

style and that can have an advantage in that you can demonstrate a weakness in your opponent

very quickly and clearly but in having that aggressive assertive style a Weakness that comes

off with that is that you may appear unlikable to people who are kind of on the fence now to flip that if you're a very

likable individual who Wants to like strive to get along with others and it doesn't have as much of that aggressive

tendency.

Then you may appeal to likeability.

But people might also think your argument comes off weaker if you're engaging a more aggressive person.

So and you could probably say this and maybe you should explore this for another episode people's personality traits when they go into debates.

They will have these kind of strengths and weaknesses.

It's kind of like also you might say with like common -sense thinking versus very philosophical.

Very philosophical might help you dissect arguments.

People might have a hard time Though understanding you but if you speak in a common -sense way people might rally behind

you.

But then more learned people will be like this guy didn't damage the other guy's case at all.

He didn't really say anything play to your strengths and be aware of your weaknesses and always work to grow

with them.

So I I mean this is good.

This is gonna be a kind of a loose, you know, we're gonna float around.

Yeah, I'm tracking the discussion here because I I think one of the things that I really do appreciate about

you.

Especially now because back when I was in the classroom, this was not really a reality.

You know, I was in a north side of by the way, do you mind if I ask?

Are you so I'm in Las Vegas.

Are you nearby or are you where are you at?

Well, I oh so I was.

Why work to Catholic answers.

For a while in San Diego, California.

But about a year ago my family and I we relocated to the Dallas Fort Worth area.

I had been to Vegas a few times though.

Well, we plan to move out of San Diego.

I hate the cold like I lived in Kansas for two years and I'm just not a snow person.

So it was really when we looked places to go we thought about going back home to Phoenix where I lived for a while.

Vegas was possibly an option.

Florida.

Then we settled on Dallas Fort Worth because you know, it's still a nice Somewhere in the Sun Belt is where I had to go, but

I've been to Vegas a few times.

I got some good stuff there, you know, well you shouldn't move to Vegas I get the sense.

We would have gotten along famously.

But but you know just being it so Vegas is kind of spread out and in the north town.

It's it's not really great.

It's lower socioeconomic status and all of that.

So I was at a school there.

With limited resources for debate.

And so where I'm getting at is now I'm I'm sort of looking at Debates online where the camera is

like right in your eye, you know.

And so this really does come back to what you just said and what I like about you.

Is that you you have your non -verbals are really controlled?

You you have an earnestness to you.

You're not making a lot of you got poker face.

But in a good way and so you come across as earnest not really like a bulldog.

Like you said earlier and that really does go a long way to benefit you.

Yes, I think that's helpful.

Another comparison you could offer because I think the most debates people watch in general.

So, you know, let's say there's Christian atheist debates.

But among the general public the only debates people ever really see are probably the presidential debates if you can call

them debates even.

You know, right so it depends but I remember many years ago.

Actually in a lot of them people because in a lot of the presidential debates.

They will show and sometimes this happens in Christian apologetic debates depending on the channel.

You're on when one person's talking they'll leave up your camera and people see what you're doing.

And so if you do these debates, you must always ask act like the camera is on you, even if you're not not sure.

So I remember in the the debates with Al Gore and George W Bush back in the year 2000.

One area where Gore stumbled a bit was that he came off.

Very condescending.

George Bush would say something and you could see in the back going.

Yeah, it's like this this kind of stuff and and it comes off.

You're right if you don't have that control over yourself.

It can come off, you know that condescending or even like a kind of your lack of control now.

It's okay to have some responses in my debate with Alex O 'Connor one of my responses I couldn't

hold him when he was talking turned into a little meme with people.

Because I gave a thought experiment about morality and I said, you know, what what about in this case?

Could you murder an innocent person to save your life and Alex said?

Yeah.

I think you could murder and cannibalize them and I was getting a drink of my water when he said that and I and I and I go.

Someone turned it into a meme and people noticed that like I had this dead man like wasn't expecting that.

Yeah.

So, I mean so you you having it's all about having that control so Poker face in general neutral

face if your opponent says something like it's just ridiculous and

attacks you.

It's instead of doing something like this like what an idiot you should just smile and shake your head

no like My goodness, right? or just a smile and laugh like okay,

like and I've seen William Lane Craig do that in some debates where someone says something ridiculous and he's just like

Yeah, you know to show that you've heard the objection you recognize it's absurd, but you're not getting worked up over it.

Yeah, that's right.

The worst thing you could do is go is have surprise.

Face like I wasn't ready for that.

What's happening, you know I'm losing it.

Then that's bad.

Yeah, but yeah, I know you have to you have to push that feeling deep down inside if you are feeling that.

In that case maybe you could offer a quizzical look.

But and I have been in situations like that before my opponent just says something Totally out

of left field like where is this going and then just proceed to writing notes or pensively thinking but yeah.

It's you when you will debate in general to do it.

Well, you have to have Control over your your non -verbals and control of your

thought and of course control over your speech and planning what you choose to say.

In response, that's right.

That's right so I mean in light of that the next question that I had for you was About

your prep time or your prep in general, like what do you do to prepare for a debate?

Well, usually what I do is once we've agreed upon a Resolution.

I start in a variety of ways.

Usually first I build up my opening statement and what's hard is and I always do this.

I'll have my opening statement done.

Let's say a few weeks beforehand.

But I still end up tinkering with it the night before because I'm like, oh this isn't working as well.

Or I'll work on my opening statement.

I read the opening statement.

Allowed and I offer myself about 30 seconds of cushion to make sure I'm not up against the wire to

finish.

So I will read it and I'll read it aloud multiple times to make sure it sounds correct.

It's easy to follow easy to understand.

I'm familiar with it so I will put that forward to be you know, be very prepared and I will go

through the opening statement and I'll make sure to cut the fat.

I want to stick with the arguments and the goal here is arguments and evidences.

Every now and then especially if my opponent is famous for a particular argument.

Sometimes in the opening statement, I will put a preemptive strike.

You know, you know, you shouldn't try to anticipate every objection and log that into your opening statement.

It's better to put forward your evidence for your case.

But every now and then if I know my opponent will phrase things in a certain way or make things confusing for people I will offer and this

is especially the case if I am the affirmative and I go first I'll offer a preemptive strike to

say my opponent often puts things this way.

But remember a B and C and that gives the audience Another way of looking at his opening

statement that way they say oh, I see what he's doing here that way.

They're they're analyzing his opening statement with my preferred lens.

So what's interesting is when you do debates.

I had a somebody was talking with me they were saying I want to do a debate with you, but could I Open and

then speak last and I said absolutely not.

Absolutely not.

Because there's a there's a trade -off there when you are the when you speak first you get the advantage of setting that framework.

You know setting a lens for people to view than the negatives opening statement.

So so you do have an advantage there.

But you also have a disadvantage that the affirmative carries the burden of proof.

The negative can just fold his arms and and we'll get up when we talked about a particular debate.

Soon just say I'm not convinced.

You shouldn't be convinced.

It's not good enough.

The negative just has to cast doubt.

So traditionally it's easier to be the negative but the affirmative can also put so much out there the negative

Can't really shoot it all down.

The negative has an advantage though in that he gets to speak last.

So he gets to have the last closing statement.

Now, you shouldn't cheat.

I Will tell you one thing they in many of my debates Is nearly everyone I've debated

has cheated at one point in the debate.

Okay, so I'll get the most common examples is when we do Q &A.

The question and answer with the audience usually it's two minutes for one person to answer one minute for the

other person to respond.

Okay, and I cannot tell you how many times I've been in a debate where I you know.

That guy gave their two minutes and I gave my one minute counter reply and then he pipes up and says something else.

Which is against the rules.

Yeah, you you had you had your turn.

We need to keep it even or in the closing statement when my opponent will present a new

argument.

Now this happened to me in my debate on the deuterocanonical books of Scripture the apart as Protestants calling the Apocrypha The

Old Testament canon that my opponent he threw a new argument in his closing statement and I said, I'm not gonna that's

false.

I'm not gonna respond at length because he shouldn't do that.

You right that's against the rules.

So what I do at the debate, you know, so I craft the opening statement real well trim it up.

Then what I do after that is I try to understand my opponent as much as I can.

Like you really I want to know him or her better than they know themselves.

So I'll watch their debates.

I will read their books and so in doing that and researching the topic and understanding where they come from.

Then I will craft Rebuttals and they will be usually I'll keep them as

notes.

Sometimes I'll keep them in a Word document.

And I'll be able on the fly when I'm talking the person I might jot down what they say in opening and then I'll

slot it into Into a rebuttal.

Sometimes I have a rebuttal pre -written because I've got a pretty I'm gonna take a good gamble a sense of what they're Gonna do

right and the key would debate for preparation.

Well, the key with doing a good debate is preparation preparation preparation if you do it off the top of your head.

You're just not gonna do as well you just won't the more you're prepared the better it's going to go so with the rebuttals I

Will take advantage of this and I think then we might this might come up more when we talk about my debate with James White.

So like when my debate with James White I had not just prepared rebuttals.

I had prepared rebuttal slides Available that I dropped in and so I

noticed this actually.

That when I went up with my computer even the second rebuttal to offer my replies.

He kind of threw up his hands Seeing that I had you know that I had this and was ready to walk people through

what he had What he had said so so that is so that's what I'll do next is I will Really

immerse myself in the other person so much.

So I'm kind of sick of him by the time the debate gets here.

If they have a paper in debate trail, and so what's hard is this is another paired

benefit Disadvantage, so I've debated some people like James White or Dan Barker who are

very Practiced they've done Debates since like before I was born so like

so they have a style they've done it a bunch so so it comes second nature to them, so that's an

advantage a Disadvantage though, and this is something I I tried to play on in my two debates with Dan

Barker.

Was that when people do things over and over again?

They fall into patterns and so they become they become predictable and you're able to anticipate what

they're going to do and Have a ready and have kind of a ready reply for that.

So yeah, so I basically just do that I also, you know spend time in in prayer and try to just be you know

Focus on what I am attempting to do in this situation.

And then yeah, just try to be prepared have some prepared cross -examination questions that I think will be most fruitful.

And then it's funny like the day of and like the day of the debate I can't get anything done at work because I'm too focused like up I

Can they shot and I just want the debate to be over already and then you get up and you you do it.

But that's mostly how I try to build up my case and then just try to be aware of Standard rebuttals and then the things

that are unique to what my opponent might bring.

Yeah, I mean, it's great cuz.

Not having had More formal training like in school and stuff like that.

You're explaining everything that we would go through in the classroom, you know, like lay in a framework.

Flowing, you know, it's a flowing is like taking notes during a debate when your opponent is saying something you're jotting it down, you

know.

Right and.

Research research is key like if you can anticipate because I mean the thing with me and my students

was we would always do drills a lot of practice debates and It was always understood that whenever you're

given a topic in a debate You got to write argument briefs from both sides and then you won't know going in.

We'll flip a coin and then you know how you're gonna debate.

Right.

But that's anticipation.

That's everything you're saying.

Yeah, that's right.

And so the key is to know your other opponents side and his arguments.

Extremely well so that you can counter them and then be prepared on your end to focus on what

you're debating.

So a key and I've done well and not as well in certain areas when I haven't focused on this.

Like if you're defending a resolution.

Focus on the resolution.

Don't let your opponent trick you into going into a side trail on things.

Where he might be ready to clobber you if it's not a crucial part of your resolution.

You can say well that is a very interesting topic, but it's not it's not related to what

we're talking about today.

So if you're a Christian and you're debating The existence of God or even you know, whether did Jesus rise

from the dead your atheist opponent might say.

So my opponent believes in the Bible, but you know the Bible says that that Christians can burn people at the

stake or That the Israelites can slaughter men women and children.

It's a trap, you know to quote Admiral Ackbar for return of the Jedi.

Because then if you're sucked into debate because he's even if you feel confident.

He purposely brought that up because he knows it's easier for him to hit you on those points and it detracts from the case.

You're trying to present so you have to be careful to not be sucked into those side venues.

But yeah, all about preparation.

I'll give you an example that when I debated Dan Barker a former pastor turned atheist author of

the book godless.

We debated once I was like it was like my first public public debate still pretty green then we debated a second

time at the University of Minnesota and.

And I was and Parker did what I thought he would that I studied his previous debates and he hit point -for -point.

Same thing now he had overwhelmed previous Christian opponents that we were debating does the Christian God exist?

So what Barker do is he just threw up?

He did something and this is helpful for people to know in Debate parlance.

This is originally called the Gish gala.

So Dwayne Gish was a young earth creationist and when he would debate people on evolution.

He would just have like 20 arguments against evolution and you know run through them quickly.

And it's hard to go back through all of them and you say well you didn't get all of them.

So I win so Barker kind of did so Barker kind of did that with Bible difficulties and contradictions.

This whole case was does the Christian God exist?

No, here's all of this stuff in the Bible.

That is difficult.

It doesn't make sense so I Practiced very hard and crafted first

my opening statement.

Pre I was a preemptive strike against that approach saying it's not relevant.

And actually I remember that debate I ended right on the buzzer right at 15 and then in the

rebuttal my rebuttal was trimmed as well that that entire Rebuttal was pre -written.

I knew exactly what he was going to do.

And so because of that I was able to neutralize at all the problem with the Gish gallop is yeah, it's good.

Except if your opponent catches everything and throws it back.

Now you're you're under the same weight to reply and you've gotten yourself into trouble.

So so there the preparation really paid off.

Oh, that's good.

That's good.

He couldn't come back with anything.

No, he was not able to catch up after that.

He could have if I was unable to reply to his arguments, but I was able to apply I think to almost every substantive

objection.

He just was because he was just here's the Bible verse boy.

Doesn't that sound bad?

Here's the next one for his Bible verse.

Oh boy, doesn't that sound bad?

So because he doesn't elaborate on them I can say actually this makes sense for X and not even be that lengthy in my

reply.

But then just hit hit it point by point and then and then throw that back to him.

So one of the things that I.

So I'm curious to get your thoughts on this one of the things that I would teach my students.

There was a kind of a Cliche saying floating around at the time and the more I thought about it.

I was like my goodness I really do think this is true.

Because we talked about frameworks and framework is really just narrating the way I define it is narrating the

debate.

Narrating the discussion to your audience so that they can better understand what's going on, especially like a really technical

Topics and discussions narrating it to them so that they have a way to think through the debate.

But you're also you're kind of you you're bringing them over to your side because you're narrating it in a way That's

advantageous to your position.

And so my point of view.

Yeah, that's exactly and which is what you've done, right?

And you're gonna see you're gonna hear from my opponent in a minute and he's gonna say X Y Z and here's why that's Wrong or wrongheaded,

but the one so here's the cliche statement.

I'm curious to get your thought.

The one who lays a better framework more often than not wins.

Regardless of any other thing, you know, like whether the arguments are more valid than the other none of that.

It's the one who lays a better framework.

What do you think about that in your experience?

No, I think that's correct that when people walk away from the debate they want a story in their head about what

happened.

You know, they hear arguments back and forth and it's very difficult to keep up with all of the arguments.

But I think it's important and one person is very good at this is William Lane Craig that when he does a debate He'll say I presented five arguments.

My opponent didn't reply to three of them and two of them.

Here's what was wrong with his objection.

I've given evidence to show it's reasonable believe in God my opponent never showed there were good reasons I either not

believe and no reasons my arguments don't work and you know, so just walking people through so I'll do this.

And you're right my debates where I have failed to do this They don't go as well as debates where I'm very disciplined and focused to say

here is what I am presenting.

Especially if I am the negative to hammer home my opponent needed to prove X.

Did he prove X.

No because of equity because of a B and C and then when I have the affirmative to say my.

My argument is that we should believe X.

This is true.

I gave all of these reasons but my opponent ignored these reasons and didn't really show who wrong with these reasons

and to and also to give a framework of.

What's very helpful is if you can say?

And I think this came up in my in my debate with Jay Dyer on natural theology.

To say look my opponent.

He is either going to in saying Christians should not practice natural theology he's either doing

natural theology in reverse because he's a presuppositional list or He's fallaciously

begging the question.

It has to be one of the two.

And so when you say my opponent is doing one of these two unacceptable things.

So you can see what what we're each doing or my debate with James White.

He got a little perturbed.

I think when I said my opponent is reading his theology into the Bible and I want to believe the Bible

should speak for itself and.

Then he got up and he told everyone this is a Catholic who tells you this people who believes

Assumption of Mary and I see he was really urged by that.

Yeah in my debate with him.

I was actually very particular in my opening statement.

To not sites.

I did not make this a Catholic Protestant debate because the topic that we were debating eternal security is something

Protestants disagree about and have different views.

So that's why I made it very clear.

I'm gonna cite the Bible and Roger Olson or

Martin Luther or Robert Gagnon or other Protestant scholars?

I'm talking about just a historic Christian position and I felt that why in bringing that

up?

I don't mean I don't know people can take it as they will one might interpret that move as

Poisoning the well as letting people know like hey, look where this gentleman's arguing from it'll take

you down a road.

You may not want to go, you know.

But but that's what I tried to do is have a framework say here's how James White will argue and

but here's problem a and problem B and I think that's important.

You're I think you're absolutely right that you need to have a framework and more importantly people like what's a framework?

I don't get it.

You need to tell the more persuasive story about what happened in the debate.

Yeah, basically, that's right.

That's right you so I was gonna bring this up.

I'm glad that you did because I was I would I was very happy to see that.

That's what you did.

And and and and unhappy to see you know, so here's the thing in the videos I can't do full debates.

It would be like a four -hour.

Nobody's gonna watch this.

Mr Potato head talk about anything for four hours.

So like I have to zoom in on something that's a little bit more spicy, which is cross -exam, but going back to your opening

statements.

When James White made it he didn't make the whole thing about it.

But he did bring up Protestantism versus Roman Catholicism and I go no, that's not what the topic is about.

So for you to come back and say this isn't that and then a lot of your evidence was was yeah

Protestants against James.

What I was like that is so that was so brilliant, you know good for you.

That's and that's very helpful when you do debates when you pick your sources.

Try to select neutral or opposing sources as much as possible.

So let's say you're debating an atheist.

What's more persuasive is not you quote JP Moorland or William Lane Craig as to why this

atheist argument is bad quote Graham Oppie jail Mackey or Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens

you find a well -known atheist who can say the particular Argument your atheist opponent is offering is not

good because then it's like oh wow, even people on that side Recognize the problem here and that

really means a lot for people who are on the other side watch like oh wow I didn't know that Christopher Hitchens or or Graham

Oppie or someone thought that this is just not a really good argument.

And so that's why when I when I was engaging white I was very focused to not turn it into a

Catholic Protestant debate and also I mean I was actually debating in front of 1200 Calvinists at the g3 conference

to not get up there and Be the snarky Catholic taking shots

at Protestants.

I why would love for them to Look into the truth of the Catholic faith at another time probably.

But to be present and be that ambassador and much the same way to make an analogy if you're gonna be a Christian debater.

Don't get up there taking your little pot shots at atheism because you want to win these people over to Christ, you know.

Be that's right.

Don't let yourself like getting Snarky and taking jabs at people.

You don't want to do that.

It's fine to offer a little Backhanded compliment or something if your opponent is being

belligerent or is being a little bit over -the -top.

But always keep in mind your audience comes first.

That's good.

That's so good.

And actually it's something that touches on where I'm going in a minute.

But so here It we're sort of been tippy -toeing around this for a little while.

One of the most requested videos that people ask me because every week people will vote and tell me hey We want you to do this one

and I missed all of these debates when I was in the classroom so I'm coming to these fresh a lot of these sure, but um, one of the

most requested was you versus Matt Dillahunty on Whether the resurrection is reasonable.

You did a really great job.

There was a moment.

So my read on Matt Dillahunty is that he he is somebody who plays different roles

In the debate when it suits him best like so for example, like when you pin him up against the wall.

Intellectually speaking as a debater he'll shift and he'll put on the audience member hat and all of a sudden he says

well.

You haven't convinced me.

It's like well.

No, that's not his job to sit here and be like that like he's supposed to argue back, right?

So like what what is your take on Matt Dillahunty as a debater?

Yeah, I think that Matt Dillahunty what's interesting?

He reminds me of like how some pastors who are Have

a good use of rhetoric when they use apologetics in Christian debates that they don't focus so

much on arguments.

They've got clever quips and turns of phrases.

To go after their opponent.

So I think when it comes to being a debater Now what was interesting in my exchange with Matt Dillahunty?

You might know is at the beginning of that Matt frat the moderator and I and Matt were Kind of talking back and forth because I

actually I thought we were going to be doing that with formal Rounds and rebuttals not an extended dialogue

period so the format changed on me.

It didn't change on me I just I overlooked that in the emails and Because of my previous debate on Matt frats

channel had been a different format I assumed it would just be the same format as a previous debate.

I've done there.

There's another rule for your would -be debaters read the fine print.

You don't want to show up it's a completely different format because doing 45 minute dialogue is way different than having rebuttal

rounds.

You have to prepare very differently.

So right, but I still engaged him and I think what Matt does it's interesting in his different formats

that I feel like sometimes He feels comfortable calling out weaknesses and other people's arguments.

But if he feels a bit overwhelmed by things he'll either do what others have called the Dillahunty dodge.

Which is I'm just not convinced and that's what that did when he said I said, you know Is it reasonable to believe that

Jesus existed and he said well, I'm not convinced I'm sure and I interrupted and said Matt.

I'm not asking about you.

I'm asking in general about people in general.

This is not about you.

And that's important because some people when they debate him Matt does well if he treats the debate as the debate was.

Can Matt Dillahunty be convinced God exists?

I wasn't convinced.

So I win.

That's right.

That's it.

That's a great topic.

I wish I could have a topic is Trenhorn convinced of atheism.

No, I won, you know so I think that when it's structured when people have an opportunity to

point out the Problematic elements and they also have to be careful because as I said earlier Matt In

some cases not it's just in the cases when he does this.

He becomes kind of a bulldog that he becomes and in cross -examination.

It's it's okay to interrupt people, but it's not a license just to be a total like steamroller to

other people and that's why.

When that happens to you to not be flustered and that's why I kind of made light of it in the discussion to say You know,

are you just gonna pontificate Matt?

Are you gonna let me give an answer?

How am I supposed to answer your question if you won't let me answer?

Just to let him know like, you know, you're you're doing this because you just don't want people to hear what I have to say.

So so yeah, so I think that it was helpful and I think especially for people on the fence you go through the comments.

It's interesting with Matt like whenever he goes and does debates.

There's like a hundred thousand Matt Dillahunty fans that follow him because he'll go to an he'll go to an obscure channel and

do a debate and that channel will be like 2 ,000 views 2 ,000 views hundred eighty thousand views.

So I'm like, oh Matt brings a sizable audience with him to watch these things and they'll watch him like I tried got destroyed

This and that but I'm interested in the people on the fence.

When they read through things say like I don't think Matt really understands history very well.

That he doesn't he doesn't understand like how History works and you know thing things like that.

So and that was similar my debate with Alex O 'Connor seeing people saying like I didn't think that was his best one.

And I'm an atheist.

So that's that's what I look for.

Yeah.

No, that's good.

And for that sort of subsection of the audience, right?

The the little things quote -unquote the little things really do matter and so going back to non -verbals.

There was just a moment that stuck out to me where I was like dang man.

That is so good.

And the thing is like I can't handle my non -verbals.

I have a.

Various backgrounds, you know, and one of them sure.

I probably shouldn't mention this.

It's gonna be very embarrassing but is acting a little bit for five seconds, but so I but.

But you know, you got to be expressive in your face.

And so to bring that into an environment where you have to have a poker face, I can't do that really.

Well, there was a moment in your debate where Matt Dillon hunty.

He said something like oh my god.

You know, like why are you bringing up Alex?

Oh, Alex O 'Connor.

That's right.

Yeah, and and this is what you did you you stopped.

No, no change of expression on your face and you go what's wrong?

And I was like that is so good man.

Cuz it's it looks like Dilla hunty is the one who is being weird and he was he's getting emotional.

He was and I think and that's where it gets interesting to compare because that's one of the few exchanges where even many

atheists Say that Matt did not do very well.

It was when Matt and Alex had an informal they're like in a hotel room having an informal conversation about

ethical veganism.

About whether we ought to be vegans and Matt isn't and so it was interesting in that exchange because it was in person.

It was just like in a hotel room and they're just chatting and their friends are both atheist pals.

You would imagine and so Matt was kind of inhibited from bringing out his bulldog that he uses when he's in

trouble.

To try to like steamroll the other person.

So he was doing a lot of dodging and seemed to be in a corner couldn't really answer Alex in the in

that regard and other atheists called him out on that.

And so I think that he and so that's why I was bringing up because the in the prompt for the debate with with Matt Was

specific and I thought it would be helpful more than arguing did Jesus rise from the dead.

I really focused on is it reasonable to believe it and and that's it.

That's a very different prompt to say look and that's why I asked Matt Something could be reasonable and

you choose to not believe in it.

That's right.

That's fine.

And so that's that and what that does is as the affirmative it lowers the burden of proof for me.

I don't have to prove that I don't have to prove that this happened.

I just have to prove You're not a crazy person for believing in it.

It's a good first step for some people who think it is crazy.

And so it's baby steps for people and so that's why I wanted to show that Matt has a big

problem.

Matt Delaney has a big problem if he can't distinguish between Something being reasonable and something being

convincing because what Matt does I here we go.

This is the insight with Matt Delaney.

Don't do his debates and he thinks he's proven Christianity is not reasonable.

Because it's not convincing to him.

But they're not the same thing and a lot of people just think that those are the same thing.

So I tried hard in that debate to show they're not the same.

You got to give a reason to think this is unreasonable beyond just you're not convinced.

No, that's that's excellent.

I mean, that's exactly what I would do.

So, you know good for you.

Good for you one of the other Most requested videos was your debate with James

White on internal security.

Now.

I guess I I was very Apprehensive to do that.

I did another.

If I can characterize it this way, I did another one.

I'm put it this way.

I'm much more comfortable doing Christians versus atheists.

I'm not comfortable doing more, you know, we're on the same team, you know, yeah, exactly so

because I did it before and it was an election or something like that and boy I that that

The people's various Members came out and against.

Well, I think you had a very fair Review and closing verdict on the debate with

white night, but if you had another thought go ahead.

Well, I just well, okay, so I you know concluded as such but I mean feel free to

you know, take a time and.

Yeah, your.

Evaluation of it.

I thought was was fair to look at what that debate would have reminded me of and your evaluation of it

it reminded me of The first Rocky movie when Rocky fights Apollo

Creed, okay.

So and I was I was very I was actually somewhat nervous going into that debate with James white.

This was actually my very first Catholic Protestant debate prior to that.

Yeah, prior to that.

I had only debated really on atheism or abortion or did Jesus exist?

So this was my first invitation to do a debate on a Catholic Protestant issue.

And it's with James white who his reputation precedes him as a debater.

So I prepared a lot for it.

But I was still nervous and I feel like now reflecting on it four years later if I could go back and do things I would Certainly do things

Differently in the cross -examination to focus the argument more.

You know always little things like that, but overall so your analysis of it.

So like going in and it was kind of like, you know, Rocky is just like this boxer from you know Streets of Philadelphia, he's gonna

fight Apollo Creed, you know, and they get in the ring and suddenly it's like hey Rocky has some punches.

Apollo Creed was not expecting like this is not knockout.

You would think of someone who's the veteran versus the rookie and so they're do you know?

And so in the movie, of course Rocky everyone thinks, you know, hey, I rocky when he beats Apollo Creed.

No, he does not beat Apollo Creed in rock.

It's at the end of the match.

It is a split decision where two of the refs technically say Apollo Creed because it didn't end in

a knockout.

So when and that's interesting like when you have a debate very few debates end with a knockout a

Debate where the other person is knocked out.

I actually feel kind of bad for those situations.

I feel like it's almost like not fair.

It has someone who's so poorly prepared or just gets completely walked over that's like in

boxing you can win a boxing match via knockout or Via technical knockout

or you know through the judges will tally up the hits the body blows the right deflections.

And so like in Rocky it was a split decision.

So I think people might come away from my debate with James White as split decision.

So people with you or side with others.

But overall I feel good because it's pretty good that Rocky was able to do that.

I felt good like hey This is my first Catholic Protestant debate with someone who has a lot of experience in this regard and I think

you have a lot of people a lot to think about on that particular position I was defending

and my other goal is just for people to have a favorable view towards a Catholic defending

Catholic doctrine showing that we care very deeply about scripture and that I want

to follow the scriptures and and Exegete them and and present them well to others.

And so even if that is just my only goal I'm happy with that coming out there.

But it's it's always fun though to see when you it's like being an athlete or ever you do the play -by -play.

You look say oh, that was a good landing I didn't stick the landing there and you always have to look and then learn

and grow and and look forward to the next one.

Basically.

No, I I appreciate that.

You're being very kind very Very even -handed with this kind of thing because I really thought about

it later.

And I mean for anybody wondering like these are these are my fresh reactions I'm not you know, I

think somebody everybody's there's always somebody but somebody said in the comment like oh this guy must be watching these Thousands

of times.

No, I'm I'm really just going in fresh like I'm gonna do the white.

Well as of this recording, I'm gonna do the white.

What Craig to be the unbelievable thing?

Oh, yes.

Yes.

I'm gonna do that soon this Friday.

And so I haven't seen it.

I people are like, hey man, did you don't tell me I want to go in Fred.

I don't know, you know, but and and I really do get the sense that The rocky thing is so apropos man.

Like that is what it was.

Like it was so close I really do feel like if I watched it again, I'd say you won like

that's how close it was.

It was so good.

It felt so good to watch.

It was just really great.

Yeah, and I think that that is that it's helpful to to see that though in general though.

I It's interesting it well.

And if you're going to do this by the people and I'd love to see more people to debate.

What's hard is I get kind of jealous of the Protestant world because like there's a lot of people

who want to study and It seems like there's a fair number of Protestants who want to get out there

and and do debate or dialogue on at least what?

We would call mere Christianity the existence of God resurrection of Jesus and I get like I'm

trying to kick Catholics to get their butt in gear to do that kind of stuff because yeah, I mean

The people that I know who go out and want to do this and debate and then we'll engage others on this.

I mean you've got like the philosopher types of William Lane Craig or JP Moreland or Others like Frank

Turek or Jay Warner Wallace or even people like, you know, like like Braxton Hunter like a good or

good job.

You're getting out there and doing that and then I look out in the Catholic world.

It's like tumbleweeds like they'll sometimes they'll do debates on like Catholic Protestant stuff.

I'm like guys we got to defend like the core Essence of this so

yeah, but it but it's.

Yeah, otherwise it was it's good to see and then that's why it's always important just to try to Learn from

what you're doing to grow and and to teach others to to manifest this in an in a gracious way.

Maybe maybe it's just one of those things where you're a little bit ahead of of the curve and

You'll be the model that that others see and then they'll.

Before you know it five ten years down the road.

We'll have a lot of.

Trenthorns out there, you know, and that's and that's what's important.

If you want to do this because the other temptation because I think this is helpful I'm sure there's some people watching your channel who would love

to do this stuff.

And if they're called to it.

They should do it and there's ways to tell that.

You can pray and have an internal call but one way of telling if you're called to do this is really gonna be the reviews.

You really have to look at them and you have to honest you got to be honest about it if you're not because I have seen some

people who go and do debates like this and I Think they do a disservice like they're not this

is not their skill set and they should focus on something else.

So you're not always gonna bat a thousand.

But I think in general if you're getting general positive reviews, like when I they had that engagement with white I

felt like it went well because I went and looked at comments and reviews and saw a wide variety of them.

The most interesting reviews for me on debates are from people who don't have a dog in the fight.

It's rare to find it, but sometimes I can.

Yeah, for example, like with white I looked up a Mormon apologist who you know.

Probably is still closer to my view, but it's still somewhat far removed saying Yeah, I think that Trent actually, you know

had this year and then seeing that white sometimes will do sometimes you can tell How a debate went

by looking and this is something you might want to comment on in a future episode.

A new trend is people will offer debriefs or reviews of the debates that they did.

And so that's something new that I've seen and I noticed that in whites review of our debate

it was not as celebratory as I had seen in like when he talks about

other debates that he's done and.

And and talks about them.

And so sometimes I can get that.

There's a lot more.

Explaining about how to under when we have to say to explain how to understand a debate.

It's like you may not feel it went as well as you would have hoped.

Although I will say when it comes to debate reviews, I think those are fine to do.

I mean, well, especially like what you do is your third party, you know.

Look, let's take a look at this if you review your own debate.

It's fine.

Don't don't use it.

I've seen some people where they like played the whole debate and gave a commentary.

I'm like, dude, you're redoing the debate man.

Yeah.

Right.

Exactly.

Yeah.

No, that's really great.

You know, it just gets me thinking, you know, there's just a lot more.

Well, I mean, here's the thing to I.

This is not where the debate teacher thing was a gimmick.

So, I don't know if I'm breaking people's hearts.

But this is not where my heart it like the debate teacher thing was a way to get people more Aware of the

ministry that I've established for years.

The ministry is more on evangelism effective evangelism techniques discipleship and things like that.

So, you know like but there is a the more I look at this there really is a

broad realm of Categories and videos that you could possibly do under this little yes niche that you and I

are discussing right now.

So and I think it's important like what you're doing because you know, I say well, how is this evangelism?

He's sitting around ranking debates or things like that.

No it is because when people say like why do you do debates?

I tell them I actually don't do debates in order to end the discussion on a topic.

But to start it because I always counsel people a debate is not a good way to Arrive at the truth of a

subject because you could have a subject where you've got a true and a false position.

But the true position is defended by someone doesn't know how to debate so they don't write it very well.

So it's a reflection on the performance of the debaters, so why do so then why do we do debates then?

Well, because they're entertaining they're entertaining and they get us Interested in an issue.

Like let's say you're gonna do the review of White and Craig on Calvinism Molin ism

way more people are going to watch that then we'll read an article analyzing the theological significances of Calvinism and

Molin ism on the question of Divine foreknowledge.

You know a few people are gonna read an article like that.

But it's fun to watch two people spar on that.

And so what I see is that the debates especially people on the fence whether it's Christianity or atheism.

Whatever it is.

You're on the fence.

I want I want to figure out more of these arguments in these things.

So it gets people more into the subject to do that.

That's my goal is to get people more Fascinated by the subject to do their own research and investigation.

But hopefully as they do it to see Ted they have a partiality to the side I've represented because the

technique that I use and the evidence I presented right?

That's great.

That's great.

Do we have a few more minutes?

I know we're running out of time here.

Yeah, actually I got.

I got a lot of time.

Don't stress.

This is this is I mean, this is it's fun.

It's fun to talk shop with people plus I work from home.

So I don't get to talk to grown -ups very much.

Oh, excellent.

All right.

I feel like we're the same age.

I'm 42.

I don't want you to call yourself out there, but I feel like we're relatively the same age.

So I think we're we're a part of the same.

I think that I'm a Geriatric millennial and so you would be a baby Gen X er.

Basically is where we would be because I'm I'm gonna be 37 in in January.

So we're we're around that same time period.

Yeah, we have a lot of shared experiences I'm sure growing up in late 80s early 90s.

Well, so then let me close with a couple questions about Evangelism because that's that's like I said, that's where I'm

at.

What is Coming out of all the debates that you've done.

What is like your favorite go -to?

Argument or thing to say in regular conversations?

Oh.

You mean my favorite thing to say just if I'm talking to people about the faith.

Yeah, you're engaging regular folk not an interlocutor on stage but just regular folks, yeah.

Well, honestly, my favorite thing to say is more to ask them my favorite question to ask them.

Which would be some and so this would be borrowed a lot from the Christian apologist Greg Koekel and his work

tactics.

To say because when you talk to people even when I'm in a debate I sometimes will pose questions

for people rather than statements like like in my debate with white to say well How do you know a Bible

passage about the loss of salvation is?

Prescriptive rather than descriptive and then what what method do you use to objectively determine that

rather than saying?

He's wrong about passage 1 2 3 4 5 and I did do that.

But to say, you know, I pose that question someone's like, oh, yeah.

Well, how how would I be able to determine that that when you leave someone with a question that bothers them?

It's more effective.

I think even than a very solid argument.

So more what I want to leave people with is how do you know X is true?

How or at least how did you come to believe that or a question?

I sometimes like to ask them is that's really interesting.

What do you think is the strongest argument against that view and what would you say to it?

Right, and then if they can't answer it's a nice that I talked to atheists a lot about this because it's very hard to get

Atheists like no set of premises is just gonna lead on.

There's a God like right there.

It's always gonna be like that's just your little silly little argument.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, what do you think is the best argument or best reason?

And what's wrong with it or what would convince you like what kind of evidence would I

find?

It's very important conversations and also in debates to this as well.

Leave someone with a question that Causes them to doubt a pillar of a false

belief that they hold.

And then that will leave room for your true belief to aid that person to come to know to know the truth.

No, that's that's excellent.

And and that's exactly what I would advocate for as well is.

There there's more of a well to to bring it over you like from using like debate language.

Cross examination is a lot more effective in in a regular guise or in a regular

setting then making a You know affirmative constructive, you know an

opening statement because when it comes to so maybe you can let me know what you think About this, but when it comes to people,

especially those who they're talking about difficult subjects religion Christianity

Especially that's not very popular anymore.

Just walk up to people cold and talk about so so you're dealing with barriers defenses people are very

defensive and so like you're trying to overcome those barriers you can do so much better with a

Gentle cross -examination style question than a statement, right?

Absolutely, so instead of talking about a controversial point of Christian morality you can ask okay.

What do you think morality is?

Do you think it's something that like we invented or we discovered it because like we discovered it We can't really change it.

We invented it we could change it.

But it doesn't seem like we could just all decide to make it really bad or if we did you say oh we could.

Okay.

Well if people did would you go along with it or not?

I go with my personal moral code.

Okay, well, how do you know when your personal moral code is right or wrong, you know.

Like have you ever done something where you felt guilty?

It sounds like you're you know.

If you are the source of the code you can always just kind of change it so you don't feel bad.

And so there you go is you're asking so there you're not boxed in on a controversial point.

They're having a hard time with you're going back to basics and back to the foundational levels.

Right and.

Again as you know Christians I would say We need to do work exegeting the scriptures

obviously, but I think as Christians especially today.

We said we should exegete people and if we do that, then we see that there's this other thing that's going on.

And I'm not saying it's a good thing.

But we a lot of us really walk around the world.

Thinking that we're master and commander of our own vessel and so, you know Galileo said a long time ago You cannot teach a man

anything, you know ladies in the audience, you know, I'm talking about right?

You cannot teach a man anything.

You can only help him to find it within himself.

And so again asking those questions leads them there, but they think they're the ones doing it.

Right, and you're just you're guiding them down that path.

And that's why it's important that we know as Christians that we do not have the power to convert people.

Only the Holy Spirit can bring someone to faith.

But what we can do is we can remove obstacles to receiving the Holy Spirit and give people questions that that

prime them so to speak to be open to that that movement of the spirit in their life, and that's Our.

Our role st. St. Paul says is out of the Corinthians.

We are chatting for Corinthians 3.

We are God's co -workers.

And we you know in planting field It says we are we are his co -workers that we don't we aren't involved in

moving someone to the moment of salvation.

But we do prepare the path so the spirit can move them to that.

Yeah, that's good.

That's good.

I think we're already kind of touching on this.

So because we're talking about elements of debates that can actually help us in regular Conversation a lot of us are gonna be

on stage doing this kind of a thing in a formal sense.

But definitely all of us can get out there and fulfill the Great Commission with the people that God has placed in our lives.

So what are some ways though that like you can't just take a debate and drop

it right down on top of a regular?

Conversation.

So like what are some ways that debates can like not help us or hinder us in regular conversations?

Sure.

Well, they can hinder us if We treat interpersonal conversations like

debates.

That's a bad idea.

So for example, like when I do debates, my goal is not to Cause

Dan Barker or Matt Dillahunty become Christian or James White to become Catholic.

That would be an excellent bonus if that were to happen, but I'm not counting on it.

Well, my goal is to reach those people sitting on the fence.

Who are listening in and they and that they they come away and say that guy had a lot of good information

and He was confident and he didn't lash out at the other guy.

I'm gonna I want to see more what he has to say.

So that so even if I'm, you know.

Kind of having a little fun a little bit or you know with with my opponent or back -and -forth playfulness.

It's okay because you know, I'm more playing to the people watching.

But the problem is those people if I talk to them I do not treat them like a debate opponent.

For I really do hope that I have a reasonable chance of if they're on the fence I'm having a conversation with them

a friend a family member to help them to see what is What I believe and they come to believe it and

also I have an added benefit my debate.

I've got two hours.

That's it with this person.

I have ideally a relationship so I can take it at a slow pace.

Because in a debate you've got a rock you've got to run hard.

You've got a 15 -minute opening statement get it all in there.

And if you don't get it in there tough, but in a real relationship.

Oh, I can take baby steps with the person.

I can walk them through it step by step, you know.

So I'm not in a debate.

I'm toe -to -toe in a car.

So you cannot take that in a conversation conversation is shoulder -to -shoulder that I'm I'm walking alongside

This individual so I do think debates can serve a role here.

Like when you're engaging people in conversation, you might say yeah, it was really good talking about this.

Hey, by the way, you might want to watch this debate.

Like I might send you on my debate with Alex O 'Connor or Ben Watkins on atheism.

So you might want to watch this because they might be more willing to watch a debate than like a talk on Something they disagree

with because at least they get to see their guy up there and you know, and then you can.

You can engage One another in that regard.

So I think that in our interpersonal conversations.

Treating them like debates will hinder evangelism.

You have to treat them as dialogue and as baby steps in conversation and that's like this I touched on before

would just be debates can hinder evangelization if You're just if you're bad at

them or you're uncharitable or the worst combination.

You're both bad and uncharitable.

It's like.

Like I don't know which I would.

I I don't know.

I think I'd rather have a charitable person who's not super intelligent.

But a smart person that everyone just just thinks is a total jackass.

I don't know.

It's um, it's a hard one that I would.

I personally would rather be someone that someone thinks that oh, I'm wrong about this rather than well, it's hard.

I don't know because sometimes I feel like I would want them to think Christianity is true.

I would rather have them think Christianity is true.

And I'm a jackass then that I'm nice and Christianity is false.

Like I would rather make that sacrifice.

But on the other hand, I feel like being on Christ like can push people away further

than just a mere absence of knowledge.

I guess here is why I feel like it's easier.

Like if you come across someone who is an ill -informed nice Christian.

It's easier to fix that with information later.

I met a Christian.

They were super nice.

But yeah, they don't really know a lot and I say, oh, well, he didn't know about this.

Oh, wow.

That's really good information to know it's easier to fix a lack of information.

It's harder to fix a lack of charity.

You're running into one Christian.

Who's a jackass.

That's just a fun word to say.

That.

No matter how many other nice Christians you put out there afterwards that one still sticks with you and it's hard to shake.

So I think that that would be yes.

I would prefer a person to be charitable and ill -informed.

Because it is easier to fix the lack of information later and get them to all these great resources that are that are out

there.

But in general, so if you want to do debates, you have to make sure you are informed and you're charitable.

And if you have that give it a try.

Have Nate review your debates.

You know see where you can grow see how it's how it's going and and go out.

You don't have to be doing.

You know there's little discord.

There's other small venues to do it, but just.

Practice being informed prepared and charitable.

No, that's real good.

And you know, I think the Apostle Paul agrees with you, you know.

Because when you're saying this, I think of first Corinthians 13 where he's like look you can be the smartest paraphrase.

You think you could be the smartest person in the room?

You could have all of these abilities and and giftings, but if you do not have love you're nothing and.

Yeah that I think you're absolutely correct on that.

It does come back to relationship at the end of the day like you you.

This is how I try to get the people around me to think about this.

Like what is the greatest commandment right?

You know, Jesus is approached in his ministry and he's challenged a little bit.

What's the greatest commandment and he you know?

He gives the the spa right like, you know.

Love the Lord you got with all your heart mind soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself.

It's not.

When debates, you know, it's not be the most effective communicator, you know.

It's love and if it's communicated in love, it'll be received in love and they're not mutually exclusive.

So like I'll give you an example like some people that I've debated.

You know, we they're there.

We still have some love an adversarial Relationship afterwards engaging our work and back and forth and that's fine.

That's the spirit of the game when you do apologetics but there's other people that I have engaged in

Formal debates or formal dialogues and I consider them charitable and I would consider them to be friends.

I think one example Would be I did my debate with Ben Watkins at that's probably one of the best

debates that I've ever taken part in.

He was.

Ben was extremely well prepared gave one of the best defenses for atheism I've seen.

I think that I responded very well point -for -point on everything.

But Ben is a really nice guy.

Like we stayed at the hotel.

Yeah, I drove him to and from the venue.

We hung out at the hotel bar afterwards and we both care a lot about truth and we can be friends and

talk about even non Atheist Christian stuff and have common ground and engagement because we both care about the

truth and we're not out.

Just to like just to win debates.

That's the key because he and I so like at the end of that debate.

This is hosted on Cameron Bertuzzi's capturing Christianity channel.

So yeah, we did the debate does God exist very high level debate like very sophisticated philosophical atheism.

Went back and forth at the very end of the debate.

We should cancel.

I think we hugged actually at the end of the debate and Ben said to me we did it we did

it as in both he and I had accomplished the goal of presenting the best

position for each side for people to determine and so it was.

Mutually enriching in that regard and so and I still enjoy talking with Ben.

In fact Ben and I we did a devil's advocate debate recently where on Abortion where I was pro

-choice and Ben was pro -life.

So we switched and so and actually ought to talk to you later about that.

I have mixed feelings about devil's advocate debates.

There I don't think I would really do them a lot in the future.

I took this particular one on abortion because I felt it was a consistent yet repugnant

position.

So even if I defend it, well people would be scared off by it.

So right, so I didn't mind necessarily defending it but there we were and so we were able to

Come at truth and he did a very good job.

Defending the pro -life you so like Ben is an example there and there's other people that I've Engaged and hope to engage in the future, but I

think we could have that report so we should have these relationships and even when it comes to debates you can have them with people you

you formally Engage if both of you are honest about seeking the truth.

That's right.

That's right.

And this is what I hope I really do hope that everybody watching really listens to your answer there

because I'm trying to communicate this as much as possible and like the interaction section in the comment section.

But when you when you're going to find it as a viewer when you're going to find a debate to watch.

You really should be looking for that filet mignon.

You should be looking for the best of the bet that the two guys or whatever ladies.

They're they're operating on all thrusters on both sides.

So you get the best views on both sides and I really do hope that that comes across.

So I also I also hope we get more women out there to do debates.

Yeah, men have a natural predisposition to want to like bang our heads together like rams, you

know.

We just naturally disposed that way.

It's like only men could invent football a game where you literally just run your heads into each other.

Yeah.

But I would love like one of my feet but women can bring very valuable contributions to debate.

One of my favorite debaters is a woman named Stephanie Gray Connors.

So Stephanie.

She's done several debates.

She does debates primarily on abortion though.

She's branching out and other bioethics issues, but Stephanie brings a wonderful charm and charisma.

I think a friend of mine said that you know she can just well he put it in a cruder way than I would have that she can

just Destroy opponents by sticking in the knife with just this wonderful angelic smile.

And of course Stephanie does not mean to she's never been cruel or uncharitable, but she can just demolish a pro -choice

position.

But she still is very Charitable and and kind when she's engaging other people,

but there aren't as many women involved in debate.

Like see so I'd love to see more and I would recommend I'm sure there's women that watch your channel on my channel.

If you feel called to give it a go, we'd love to see more of that representation up there.

Excellent.

Yeah agreed.

Totally agree train.

I thank you so much for your time.

I'm really enjoying this but we're coming to a close and I want to make sure that you let everybody know like

what's what's Upcoming for you.

You got any projects or any other debates maybe down the down the line?

Sure.

Well, I've submitted a book.

It's a dialogue book with my inner skeptic.

So it's a where I debate me the hardest allowed to a to debate.

So I've got a book where I dialogue with my internal sense of doubt and people I think will like that.

Working on the other writing right now.

I've got a few debates and public dialogues.

Set up for 2022 that I'm going through.

One would be a Catholic Protestant debate on Mary.

So that's hopefully gonna be that's confirmed for April February March.

I'm hoping to do a dialogue two dialogues on the Kalam cosmological argument.

One with an atheist and another with a Catholic who disagrees with me about the argument soundness.

So it's a little intramural in that regard and then after that.

Maybe this summer.

This is still very TBD, but I've been engaging the work of a Protestant scholar Gavin Ortlund who's a

very charitable intelligent Individual is a channel called truth unites.

I published a response to him on purgatory.

And so I'm hoping maybe to do a series of dialogues with him.

Maybe even.

Something in person will we'll just have to see but they're they're a lot of fun debates.

One of my favorite things like what's funny is I'm kind of scaling back my public speaking schedule.

I don't do talks as much because I kind of feel like audio animatronic when I give a talk.

I'm like, yeah, you know.

It's the same old talk.

But debates it's just you never know what you're gonna get.

So just they're a lot of fun.

Yeah, well, like I said, it's it's quite a treat to watch you do your thing.

You're really good at it.

And I just want to encourage you man.

Just keep keep doing what you're doing and.

You know, we'll be we'll be watching, you know, and I appreciate it.

Oh, and I'll let viewers know if they want to get more of my materials.

I would definitely recommend my podcast the Council of Trent co -un SCL Counselor and that is that is

available on iTunes Google Play and on YouTube as well.

Right, and of course.

The YouTube channel and Trent horn comm for more information from Trent Trent horn

apologist professor author.

And again, all of the things for Trent go to his YouTube channel and check out his website.

Trent Thanks so much for joining me today.

Absolutely. Thanks for having me.