A helpful hint for atheists: If you're going to debate God as a source of morality, it's probably not a good idea to do it with a literal psychopath with a Phd in philosophy. Unfortunately for Matt Dillahunty, this is a lesson he learned a little too late, as he went head to head with David Wood to try to show that Secular Humanism is a better foundation for morality than Christianity.
Purely by virtue of the fact he is a psychopath who, as an atheist, was very immoral (including unprovoked attempted patricide), yet is now a Christian leading a normal, moral life, David Wood won that debate. Matt Dillahunty was effectively trying to explain to the sky why it is not blue. But surprisingly, this is not the craziest thing about this debate. In my unprofessional opinion, the craziest thing about the debate was when Matt commented on God, saying "Can He send me to Hell? I will go to Hell knowing that I was a morally superior to the thug that sent me there."
It's not often that atheists will admit to being closed minded. Matt Dillahunty especially likes to give the impression that he is an objective thinker, willing to change his mind if the evidence presents itself. Yet, here he is, effectively admitting "I could come face to face with God Himself and tell Him that I, as a finite creature, not only know more than He does, but also have more authority than He does". And that really is the crux of the matter.
See, the problem with Matt's view is that he defines morality not as a system of "good" and "evil", but as the method by which we achieve a certain goal, namely human well being. As for why that goal is necessarily good? He can't give an answer. In fact, he explicitly stated that the universe does not compel us to accept it, and that for people who do not share that goal (like pre-conversion David Wood), "I'm not talking to you".
Well there you go, Matt! You're not even talking to God. See, if you define morality as that which best benefits human well being, obviously you're "morally superior" to God. But literally anyone can be "morally superior" to God by simply defining morality as that which best suits their own goal. If your goal is the complete extermination of the Jews, Hitler will go to Hell knowing he was morally superior to God, because whereas God is still protecting the Jews and has promises to fulfil to them, Hitler at least tried to wipe them out.
But of course, morality is not just about achieving a goal. In fact, even if we take that logic, God Himself has a goal. It's not necessarily human well being (although it certainly factors this in), but is actually His own glory. With this as a benchmark, Matt's claim to be morally superior to God still fails. See, nothing is worse for human well being than Hell, and nothing is better for human well being than knowing God. Those who know God receive benefits both in this life and the next. Those who reject God receive temporary "benefits" while God's mercy lasts, but the moment they die, their sins are called into account, and they receive eternal punishment for that, lacking the benefits God grants to His beloved.
Now, if God's goal is His own glory, God is perfectly moral, because it is literally impossible for Him to lose in the end. If the angels never sin, God is glorified by their sinlessness. If the rebellious angels are punished in Hell, God is glorified by that justice. If rebellious humans repent and are not only forgiven for their sins, but ultimately receive eternal life in sinless perfection in Heaven, God is glorified by that grace. If rebellious humans spend their entire lives rebelling, never repent, and receive the full punishment for that sin in the place prepared for the devil and his angels (that's right, Matt, Hell wasn't even designed for you), God is glorified by that justice. There is literally no scenario in which God's glory suffers, and therefore His morality, when defined as the best method to achieve a certain goal, is perfect.
Compare that with Matt. Matt's stated goal is human well being. But as we've already established, knowing God is great for human well being on both sides of Judgement Day, and rejecting Him is absolutely terrible. Yet, Matt Dillahunty makes a living arguing both himself and his followers into Hell. Thus, Matt does the exact opposite of seeking human well being, and so by his own admission is morally inferior to God. Thus, his only consolation in Hell, ironically, will be the understanding he receives post-judgement from God on exactly why it is just for him to be there.
Alternatively, because God is more glorified by a penitent sinner receiving eternal life than an arrogant rebel receiving the punishment he deserves, it couldn't be easier for Matt Dillahunty to not go to Hell. To my knowledge as I write this article (and hopefully as you read it), he's still alive. And the cost of his immorality has been paid in full. If Matt repents, confesses Jesus as Lord, and believes He rose from the dead, He can inherit eternal life. And of course, once he has it for himself, he can improve human well being by sharing the wealth. Win for God, win for Matt, win for anyone Matt convinces. If not? Win for God, loss for Matt, loss for anyone Matt convinces. Matt's worldview is crazy, Matt's arguments are crazy, it would be significantly better for Matt to soften his heart, humble himself before God, and bring as many people to do the same as is within his abilities.