My takeaway from the debate:
Jay argued from the Transcendental position while Matt, the Pragmatic position. As an aside, Matt seemed to be getting bogged down in the normative view of particulars, which if you think about it, is a pragmatic approach to (Matt's) life, but that's about the extent of the explanatory power of that position the way Matt presented it.
From what I gathered from the debate, Matt, rather than planting a flag on a hill and defending it, wiffled and waffled with a lot of humming a hawing of "I don't knows," which is fine in normative life, but not as a justification for the “meta-category†he was using to argue his position in the first place, namely: Logic. “How do you pragmatically justify the use of metaphysical categories?†To which he was unable to present the justification.
I take that back, he did try to defend (his own version of) "Pragmatic Skepticism," which was soundly dismantled due to Matt's lack of coherency. Matt was consistent with Pragmatism, but incoherent when questioned on it.
Jay, the man, planted his flag on his hill and defended it admirably swatting away any objections by Matt using philosophical data (and philosophy itself), namely: the philosophers being cited (by both gentlemen) own words, and history.
Matt's Pragmatism, in this debate, stood no chance against Jay's Transcendental Argument for God. Ergo, Matt was unable to pragmatically justify his presupposition/use of certain metaphysical categories.
If I subscribed to MBTI as a valid science, I would say that Matt is the "Sensor" while Jay the "Intuitive." (I intuit that my understanding of these concepts are probably wrong because I don't study them)
Very fun debate to watch for the philosophy nerds.
