Fairly well-known Christian apologist and scholar Johnathan McLatchie (who describes himself as “Christian writer, international speaker, debater, assistant professor…”) rage quitted a debate with the atheist Matt Dillahunty on the Youtube channel Modern-Day Debate. It is an interesting channel certainly worth subscribing to because of the breadth of debate topics it includes and the representatives it invites.
Some of the channel’s many debate topics are on God, religion, and the evidence for religious claims made by Christians and Muslims, among many others. In this encounter, Mclatchie was up against Dillahunty only to rage quit on the topic of the ‘Evidence for the Resurrection?’ for Jesus Christ (see 01:19:47 for the rage quit). This need not have happened because Mclatchie was much stronger than Dillahunty in this debate. But McLatchie was much weaker in his resilience.
Essentially, McLatchie rage quitted after Dillahunty had dismissed his arguments for Jesus’ resurrection. At one moment McLatchie’s face was on screen via a cam and the next it disappeared as he yanked off his cam and presumably stormed off. Dillahunty could not resist making a point saying that “I’m pretty sure he just quit because I’m not gonna accept the stories from his book…” The atheist disciples of Dillahunty who swarmed the chat box in this debate savored McLatchie’s rage quite like fine wine and continued their mockery of faith and its representatives.
This was a very weak moment for Christianity and Christian apologetics in particular. McLatchie failed to have the resources needed to deal with a disrespectful proponent of a different worldview, in this case, Dillahunty and atheism. Having watched several debates in which Dillahunty has participated, Dillahunty is indeed disrespectful towards his theistic opponents often scoffing at them, dismissing them out of hand, interrupting them, raising his voice, and outright insulting them (apparently the much more resilient apologist David Wood is like “talking to a brick wall”, as Dillahunty several times made known to Wood’s face in their debate on morality).
Christians need to keep cool-headed and be prepared for their engagements. The often-cited verse 1 Peter 3:15 from the Bible implores Christians to always be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you”. McLatchie should have been prepared for his encounter, especially since he has debated on several occasions against other ideological opponents before. He should have been prepared enough to know the tactics Dillahunty employs and the potshots he takes at those who disagree with him ideologically. After all, McLatchie was dealing with a deeply entrenched fundamentalist atheism in Dillahunty, the sort who is not too far off rejecting that Jesus existed historically.
Nine minutes later McLatchie returned, his face once again popping up on screen, and apologized: “Can you guys hear me? Matt I just wanted to apologize, I was a little bit frustrated with you constantly interrupting me and dismissing everything I was saying without interaction, and so I got a bit frustrated there, so I apologize.”
But by this time, and regardless of the strength of arguments, McLatchie had already lost the debate, at least in the eyes of almost everyone watching it. One must remember that Christians are called to be brave and courageous (Deut. 31:6; Josh. 1:6), prepared (1 Peter 3:15), and to “stand firm in the faith” (1 Cor. 16:13), a template they ought to apply when dealing with ideological opponents, even the rude and disrespectful ones.
Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society, and Philosophy 
This was a while ago and seems kind of unnecessary. While Jonathan goofed dragging this out in the open is not really covering a fellow brother but making him look bad.
I’ve seen the debate and I did not see McLatchie give any good evidence for the resurrection.
We can’t blame him however since there is no evidence at all. An empty tomb is just an empty tomb. It’s a very long way from seeing an empty tomb to concluding the laws of nature have been suspended. Moreover, all the alleged evidence is from contradictory stories in one single book. The stories were written long after the fact, after decades in with they were spread only by word of mouth. We have no original manuscripts, only copies of copies of copies of copies of copies (etcetera) that date from more than a century later. There are no extra-biblical accounts of the resurrection and there aren’t even any contemporary accounts of the existence of a historical Jesus at all.
I propose you guys give it up. Why not be honest about it and admit that there is no good evidence? Just say you believe because of your gullibility (I believe you people call it “faith”) or because you can “feel the presence of Jesus in your heart”, just like Muslims and Hindus, and Sikhs claim to truly, deeply, and sincerely feel the presence of their god in their hearts.
This uninformed criticism always confounds me. You’ve simply cited common and uninformed atheist canards about Jesus, Humean objections, a random Ehrman statement, and dismissed the most important Gospel historical narratives about the connection between the empty tomb and the resurrection.
The idea that contemporary accounts are required for the existence of any historical figure is simply wrong. The vast majority of ancient history contains non-contemporaneous sources. If that was the standard, we’d have to dismiss almost everything about ancient Roman, Greek, Medieval, Mesoamerican, etc. history. In some cases, the non-contemporaneous are actually superior to the contemporaneous ones for various reasons. In Jesus’ case, there is a large number of sources, many going back within a generation. If you have read ancient history without your anti-religious prejudices, you’d realize this. I recommend you go to O’Neill’s History for Atheists where, as an atheist himself, he explains these basic points.
Ironically, Matt Dillahunty himself ragequit a debate with Andrew Wilson. Lmao