This debate ( audio | little over an hour ) took place in 2007 between vaccine researcher Brandon Burton and then biology grad student Abbie Smith vs anti-vaccination snake oil salesman Lenny Horowitz. It was an episode of the Infidel Guy Show (I miss it) and they debated whether HIV was man-made.
3 Stars: If you can get past Horowitz massive ego there are some absolutely great points made against the guy that seem to completely fly past him.
Lenny Horowitz claims that the US Government started HIV in order to support Big Pharma and rake in all the money gained from charging victims for the medication offered as treatment.
He's long winded and appears to not really pay attention to what Smith and Burton mention, which is that the actual credible sources Horowitz cites as supporting his case, are not as concrete as Horowitz thinks and have actually changed their minds on the issue in the 5 plus years since Horowitz first used them as references.
This outdated position doesn't seem to phase Horowitz and things kind of go back in forth from there, slowly getting more waspishy as the short debate continues.
It's a fun debate but it's one of the few times where the complete obliviousness an opponent has to the fact that his arguments have been destroyed really kind of irks me. Horowitz is simply not a good human being.
Technical
Kind of quiet audio quality.
Revisions
8-23-2015 Wrote the actual review, so I'm re-posting this!
Showing posts with label Exclusive!. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exclusive!. Show all posts
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Monday, September 16, 2013
Mark Mathis vs Scientific American Editors interview on the Expelled Documentary 2008 BEST CHECK
This debate ( audio 1 & 2 | 1:13.47s ) took place in 2008 between Mark Mathis, a producer for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed who screened the movie to editors of Scientific American, who recorded an interview with Mathis for their podcast.
4.25 Stars: Mathis is just in over his head in this interview with probably the most informed journalists on the topic he could possible meet. It's an uneven match, but a very good listen. BEST CHECK
This one is pretty brutal. It is just over an hour of legit scientific journalists grilling someone who obviously has no idea what he is talking about and apparently had no idea what he was getting into. To be fair, it was a bunch of people versus one guy who obviously has no background in science whatsoever.
The topics discussed ranged from the Wedge document, academic freedom, theistic evolution, Hitler, all the stuff that came up in that terrible movie. I've seen it. It's boring and cheap and Stein makes a very tortured comparison between himself and Reagan for some reason.
The editors questioning Mathis included John Rennie (pictured above) then Editor-in-Chief of SciAm and Steve Mirsky who hosts the mag's podcast called Science Talk. Both have backgrounds in science and journalism so they sure didn't pull any punches.
I suggest everyone gives this one a listen. Mathis barely keeps his head above water the whole time, I think he only gives one legit answer to a point I think that people on the side against ID/Creation often make: that the reason why it's not the Earth is round or flat teach the controversy or gravity is just a theory, teach the controversy...is because evolution deals with issues more personal to humans, like the origins of life. But that's more of an explanation why evolution is a bigger target and not a negation of the point made by asking why IDers aren't attacking other science theories.
But that one point takes Mathis a very long time to bring up and if anything, I don't see why anyone wouldn't agree with that. Mathis gets pretty punchy near the end and so does Rennie. This is a very intensely fun listen.
Technical
Great AQ, it's a podcast! As of now, I am hosting the mp3s because I haven't found links to them on the internet, the iTunes archive of the show probably has them, though.
Revised 8-23-2015: Added a bit more flesh to the review and brought the score down in light of the uneveness of the match up.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Pigliucci v Hovind on Evolution and Creation BEST TOP TEN
This debate ( audio | 2h10m26s ) occurred in 2003 on the Infidel Guy Show. It was between Biologist/Philosopher Massimo Piggliucci and Dr. Kent Hovind. It was on a lot of topics.
DB: 1m40s
5 stars. BEST TOP TEN
This one is pretty great. A lot of different topics are covered including evolution, Creation, geologic time, science education, Hovind's salary.
The debate is pretty one-sided, Piggliucci almost never lets Hovind get away with anything and calls him out on a lot of things. Hovind certainly is a smart man but he refuses to correct himself and though he is polite and doesn't interrupt or talk over his opponents he is a total sleazeball. You can tell he ultimately wants to just keep people from leaving the insane views of YEC.
One particularly annoying part is Hovind's relentless stance that time is the god of evolution. Apparently saying that evolution occurs over a long period of time is the same as saying that anything can occur given enough time. This is the argument Hovind uses to argue that evolution is a religion, too. The worst thing is that I have heard others use this argument - more specifically: Rabbi Schmuley Boteach uttered it in his 2008 debate with Hitch. So a pastor and a rabbi are so ignorant of what is required to label something a religion that they'll label the concept of time as a religion, as a god even.
Oy.
Anyways, like I said, a lot is covered, Hovind has a response (not necessarily an answer one would take seriously) to everything that can be brought up on this topic so he certainly keeps at the debate all the way through. The calls are all pretty great too, again this is one of the best!
Technical: Decent AQ, no video cause it's an internet radio show.
DB: 1m40s
5 stars. BEST TOP TEN
This one is pretty great. A lot of different topics are covered including evolution, Creation, geologic time, science education, Hovind's salary.
The debate is pretty one-sided, Piggliucci almost never lets Hovind get away with anything and calls him out on a lot of things. Hovind certainly is a smart man but he refuses to correct himself and though he is polite and doesn't interrupt or talk over his opponents he is a total sleazeball. You can tell he ultimately wants to just keep people from leaving the insane views of YEC.
One particularly annoying part is Hovind's relentless stance that time is the god of evolution. Apparently saying that evolution occurs over a long period of time is the same as saying that anything can occur given enough time. This is the argument Hovind uses to argue that evolution is a religion, too. The worst thing is that I have heard others use this argument - more specifically: Rabbi Schmuley Boteach uttered it in his 2008 debate with Hitch. So a pastor and a rabbi are so ignorant of what is required to label something a religion that they'll label the concept of time as a religion, as a god even.
Oy.
Anyways, like I said, a lot is covered, Hovind has a response (not necessarily an answer one would take seriously) to everything that can be brought up on this topic so he certainly keeps at the debate all the way through. The calls are all pretty great too, again this is one of the best!
Technical: Decent AQ, no video cause it's an internet radio show.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Novella v Baughman 2007 Is the Field of Psychiatry Scientific? CHECK
This debate ( audio | 1h08m59s ) took place in 2007 on the topic: "Is the Field of Psychiatry Scientific?" It was between the SGU's Dr. Steven Novella and author of The ADHD Fraud, Dr. Fred Baughman.
4 stars. CHECK
Okay enough Craig and enough religion, how about a debate on something else? Unfortunately for you, dear reader, this is another topic close to my heart.*
This debate occurred after Baughman appeared on the Infidel Guy Show to take calls. Baughman holds that ADHD isn't a disease (or disorder, which is what it really is) and wrote a book against it and many other disorders of the mind. Dr. Novella is famous for hosting the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a podcast on skepticism that has a place in my heart as it was one of the first skeptical resources when I became interested in the community. I stopped listening back in 2008, though.
I always liked how straight forward Dr. Novella was and I stumbled across this debate on an SGU fan site, for all I know Novella has done other debates since, like I said, I stopped listening in 2008.
The debate was on whether or not psychiatry was supported by enough evidence to justify its existence and more specifically, the prescription medications psychiatry doles out to patients. Baughman feels that ADHD (attention deficit hyperactive disorder) is not a real disease...or disorder - the definition of the two and the difference becomes a huge and pretty much unresolved issue of the debate - and that big pharma are lying to kids to get them to take meth...okay I might have simplified the argument a little but, there it is.
Novella on the other hand, feels that the field has proved itself, disorders (he distinguishes between the two like any sane person and unlike Baughman) of the mind do exist and have been researched extensively, plus: the prescription medications used for ADHD are highly effective in curbing the issues that arise from it and other learning disorders.
Baughman counters by ignoring this and saying that there are no purely objective tests available to demonstrate things like dyslexia or ADHD etc are diseases. Repeatedly he complains that these disorders aren't diseases even after Novella explicitly defines the two different terms. When asked by Reggie to explain the difference (over 30 minutes into the show), Baughman just says they're the same thing and that psychiatrists use the confusion to dupe parents into drugging up their kids. Near the end of the program a caller nails him pretty badly on it and Baughman only says the same thing over and over again.
I used to love this debate but I just can't consider it great after relistening to it. It's too short, Baughman talks at such long lengths and it isn't until the end of the program that Reggie finally asks him to get to the point on one of his rants - his voice doesn't help either. He comes off as senile at some points, like I said, he drones on and on and talks over Novella and doesn't counter almost anything Novella says. A little into the debate he does address one thing and it's where Novella really devastates Baughman. After Novella asks him this one question there is a long pause and he just falls apart.
Another issue that irked me is that Baughman droned on so much and kept talking and interrupting when Novella responded, he would just cut him off and talk over him which resulted in both he and the audience not hearing what Novella had to say. Novella doesn't repeat himself a few times after this happens and some of the really good points he makes become lost in this mess. Otherwise, Novella was great and it was obvious who the victor was, despite the fact that Baughman obviously learned nothing in the dialogue.
Technical: Okay AQ.
*I have ADHD and wasn't diagnosed until after high school. It is a thing and it has been pretty annoying dealing with those who think that it is just kids being lazy.
4 stars. CHECK
Okay enough Craig and enough religion, how about a debate on something else? Unfortunately for you, dear reader, this is another topic close to my heart.*
This debate occurred after Baughman appeared on the Infidel Guy Show to take calls. Baughman holds that ADHD isn't a disease (or disorder, which is what it really is) and wrote a book against it and many other disorders of the mind. Dr. Novella is famous for hosting the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, a podcast on skepticism that has a place in my heart as it was one of the first skeptical resources when I became interested in the community. I stopped listening back in 2008, though.
I always liked how straight forward Dr. Novella was and I stumbled across this debate on an SGU fan site, for all I know Novella has done other debates since, like I said, I stopped listening in 2008.
The debate was on whether or not psychiatry was supported by enough evidence to justify its existence and more specifically, the prescription medications psychiatry doles out to patients. Baughman feels that ADHD (attention deficit hyperactive disorder) is not a real disease...or disorder - the definition of the two and the difference becomes a huge and pretty much unresolved issue of the debate - and that big pharma are lying to kids to get them to take meth...okay I might have simplified the argument a little but, there it is.
Novella on the other hand, feels that the field has proved itself, disorders (he distinguishes between the two like any sane person and unlike Baughman) of the mind do exist and have been researched extensively, plus: the prescription medications used for ADHD are highly effective in curbing the issues that arise from it and other learning disorders.
Baughman counters by ignoring this and saying that there are no purely objective tests available to demonstrate things like dyslexia or ADHD etc are diseases. Repeatedly he complains that these disorders aren't diseases even after Novella explicitly defines the two different terms. When asked by Reggie to explain the difference (over 30 minutes into the show), Baughman just says they're the same thing and that psychiatrists use the confusion to dupe parents into drugging up their kids. Near the end of the program a caller nails him pretty badly on it and Baughman only says the same thing over and over again.
I used to love this debate but I just can't consider it great after relistening to it. It's too short, Baughman talks at such long lengths and it isn't until the end of the program that Reggie finally asks him to get to the point on one of his rants - his voice doesn't help either. He comes off as senile at some points, like I said, he drones on and on and talks over Novella and doesn't counter almost anything Novella says. A little into the debate he does address one thing and it's where Novella really devastates Baughman. After Novella asks him this one question there is a long pause and he just falls apart.
Another issue that irked me is that Baughman droned on so much and kept talking and interrupting when Novella responded, he would just cut him off and talk over him which resulted in both he and the audience not hearing what Novella had to say. Novella doesn't repeat himself a few times after this happens and some of the really good points he makes become lost in this mess. Otherwise, Novella was great and it was obvious who the victor was, despite the fact that Baughman obviously learned nothing in the dialogue.
Technical: Okay AQ.
*I have ADHD and wasn't diagnosed until after high school. It is a thing and it has been pretty annoying dealing with those who think that it is just kids being lazy.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Matt Slick on The Infidel Guy Show (features Robert Price) BEST
This debate ( audio | 1h09m55s ) took place, IIRC, in 2006 and it was on IGS. I guess the topic was whether or not atheism is tenable or rational which Matt agreed to right off the bat.
4.25 BEST FUN
A lot of callers call in and beat up on Matt pretty badly. Reggie is also on the offensive in this one, a lot more than with other interviews I have heard him perform.
Furthermore, the beauty of a call-in debate is that callers can come in with only one topic they know a lot about and grill the interviewee on that. One caller calls in getting Matt pretty flustered over defining god, a bunch of callers call in pointing out that the bible does say that god did create evil and then Robert Price, THE BIBLE GEEK, calls in to call out Matt on his poor arguments for why it's okay for god to send people to Hell.
Matt's usually a pretty big bully and frankly it's nice to hear him on the receiving end of this kind of crap where his condescension, hand-waving and yelling don't hold as much force as they usually do. Matt links to the show on his site and talks about how he didn't know they were taking calls and if that were the case then that's a bummer and Matt certainly went with it like a champ.
A solid hour of good internet radio, check it out!
Technical: It's okay AQ.
4.25 BEST FUN
A lot of callers call in and beat up on Matt pretty badly. Reggie is also on the offensive in this one, a lot more than with other interviews I have heard him perform.
Furthermore, the beauty of a call-in debate is that callers can come in with only one topic they know a lot about and grill the interviewee on that. One caller calls in getting Matt pretty flustered over defining god, a bunch of callers call in pointing out that the bible does say that god did create evil and then Robert Price, THE BIBLE GEEK, calls in to call out Matt on his poor arguments for why it's okay for god to send people to Hell.
Matt's usually a pretty big bully and frankly it's nice to hear him on the receiving end of this kind of crap where his condescension, hand-waving and yelling don't hold as much force as they usually do. Matt links to the show on his site and talks about how he didn't know they were taking calls and if that were the case then that's a bummer and Matt certainly went with it like a champ.
A solid hour of good internet radio, check it out!
Technical: It's okay AQ.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Wise v Taylor Racial Diversity BEST TOP TEN
This debate ( audio | transcript | 1h39m21s ) took place on the Infidel Guy Show in 2007. It was between Jared Taylor and Tim Wise.
DB: 3m57s
5 stars. BEST TOP TEN
A pretty lame misconception by many (left, center and right) is that racism is no longer that big of an issue. It still is, very much so. Tim Wise is soo coherent in showing how latent racism is still a huge issue and though he surely filibusters a whole lot, he is very concise and to the point on a lot of things. Jared Taylor is probably the best racist pricks have to offer so this cannot be faulted for being an unfair debate other than the fact that Wise did talk a lot.
This debate should be heard by all.
DB: 3m57s
5 stars. BEST TOP TEN
A pretty lame misconception by many (left, center and right) is that racism is no longer that big of an issue. It still is, very much so. Tim Wise is soo coherent in showing how latent racism is still a huge issue and though he surely filibusters a whole lot, he is very concise and to the point on a lot of things. Jared Taylor is probably the best racist pricks have to offer so this cannot be faulted for being an unfair debate other than the fact that Wise did talk a lot.
This debate should be heard by all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)