This debate ( audio | video | 2hrs ) occurred in 2011 between one of the four horsemen Sam Harris and Apologist Debate Missile WL Craig. It got a lot of blog attention and thus you'll see a lot of reviews below.
2.75 stars LAP
CSA review 1, 2 & 3
APF review: 4.5/5
Hallq's review and more discussion
TGS review
WK review: Xians always win
I just think that Sam Harris is an alright speaker. He seems bland to me, but he is one of the folks that Luke M. expressed a wish to see debate WL Craig AND after pestering Chris Hallquist about his favorite debates and learning that Craig's debate against Harris was one of them I decided to give Harris a chance.
Le sigh. The debate a bummer. Both Craig and Harris don't fair too well. The difference is that Harris came off as being off-topic, so it looked like he was just rehashing all the normal New Atheist topics while Craig - even on an off debate - still knows that calling out his opponent for not responding to his arguments and claiming that he is talking about irrelevant things, makes you look slick and puts you in the lead.
In Hallq's review you'll see that some have argued Harris wasn't off-topic, and I can see that, but he certainly didn't do a great job of explaining why his points were relevant. Honestly, it just sounded like he wanted to criticize religion which isn't a bad thing, but morality is a big issue, and Harris wrote a book called The Moral Landscape! Craig also apparently made a lot of rules about the debate that biased the topic in his favor, which if true, is pretty lame (though not surprising, I mean, Craig won't talk about whether the bible is free of errors because he thinks bringing it up is a "debate tactic") so Harris purposely decided not to play by Craig's rules. This would have been nice if he actually mentioned that he was doing this and why in the debate.
The questions were kind of bleh but the mod did a good job of stopping people from hogging the mic.
If you want to see a debate where someone doesn't play by Craig's rules but still throws down then I would suggest you check out Craig's debate with Stephen Law.
Technical: Good AQ and VQ.
A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!
RE: 7-23-2013; There were a lot of mistakes I needed to fix....at one point I said the word "people" instead of "bible"...augh.
Showing posts with label LAP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LAP. Show all posts
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Saturday, June 15, 2013
McDowell v Corbett Morality 2010 CHECK
This debate ( audio ) took place in 2010 between "the next William Lane Craig" Sean McDowell and old-man magee James Corbett. It was supposed to be about morality but Corbett tried his darnedest to change that.
2.75 stars. CHECK, LAP, GTP
APF review: 3/5
WK: Xians always win
CSA review
McDowell interview on Pale Blue Dot
This debate is pretty bad.
McDowell, for his part, doesn't present anything new or special, but a) he's super charming and good natured b) he was polished and prepared and c) Corbett was absolutely awful.
McDowell presented the classic case for "divine command theory" - it is apparently impossible for Xians* to fathom a system of morality not reliant on some sky-brah - and like I said, did nothing special. He used a few different classic examples and tweaked them a bit but nothing fancy. He does however preempt a lot of the misconceptions atheists use to debate this subject and guess what, this works out.
Corbett goes up and muddles and rants. I bet the Freethinkers Club that put this debate on were so bummed by this guy. He doesn't address the topic, just bitches about Xian atrocities (which falls flat because McDowell had already addressed this issue) and is disinterested and condescending. He also kept complaining that he already answered certain objections. He kept sounding angry and asdfasdfa auuugh. Definitely a lame atheist performance.
I rated this debate poorly because of the lack of substance but I still recommend you kids check it out because Sean McDowell definitely threw down and he has a long career ahead of him.
Technical: The audio has a buzzing for the first few minutes but it goes away. Otherwise, it is nice and loud AQ
*not all Xians, of course :)
RE: 9-5-2013; I added a few more links.
2.75 stars. CHECK, LAP, GTP
APF review: 3/5
WK: Xians always win
CSA review
McDowell interview on Pale Blue Dot
This debate is pretty bad.
McDowell, for his part, doesn't present anything new or special, but a) he's super charming and good natured b) he was polished and prepared and c) Corbett was absolutely awful.
McDowell presented the classic case for "divine command theory" - it is apparently impossible for Xians* to fathom a system of morality not reliant on some sky-brah - and like I said, did nothing special. He used a few different classic examples and tweaked them a bit but nothing fancy. He does however preempt a lot of the misconceptions atheists use to debate this subject and guess what, this works out.
Corbett goes up and muddles and rants. I bet the Freethinkers Club that put this debate on were so bummed by this guy. He doesn't address the topic, just bitches about Xian atrocities (which falls flat because McDowell had already addressed this issue) and is disinterested and condescending. He also kept complaining that he already answered certain objections. He kept sounding angry and asdfasdfa auuugh. Definitely a lame atheist performance.
I rated this debate poorly because of the lack of substance but I still recommend you kids check it out because Sean McDowell definitely threw down and he has a long career ahead of him.
Technical: The audio has a buzzing for the first few minutes but it goes away. Otherwise, it is nice and loud AQ
*not all Xians, of course :)
RE: 9-5-2013; I added a few more links.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Craig vs Stenger - Does God Exist? (2d Debate) 2010
This debate ( audio | video ) was between retired Physicists Victor Stenger and Craig. It took place in 2010 and the debate topic was: Does God Exist?
3 stars.
PhilVaz 5/5
WK review: Xians always win
WK review: Xians always win
I was pretty disappointed with this debate. Stenger did a
great job against Craig in 2003 but this time around he seemed more muddled and
even less prepared. Stenger even introduced whole new arguments in his closing
speech, which was kind of lame because Craig couldn’t respond to them.
Craig was polished as usual and I think he did better in
this debate than the previous one. He did kind of ignore some of Stenger’s
arguments but Stenger wasn’t all that great at pointing that out.
The Q&A was kind of a waste, too. Not a wonderful but
not a terrible debate.
Technical: Good AQ, Stenger messed up his mic at some point,
though.
A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!
A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
DiCarlo & Dillahunty vs Horner & Chamberlain - Does God Exist? 2012
In this debate ( video | 2:22.53s ) we have Christopher DiCarlo and Matt Dillahunty go up against Michael Horner and Paul Chamberlain at the "Imagine No Religion" conference in 2012.
2.5 stars. LAME ATHEISTS PERFORMANCE
Augh, so many instances of dropping the ball were seen in this one, gang. Both sides don't do absolutely miserable, but rather they seem to miss great opportunities and squander potential greatness.
PZ Meyers made reviewed the debate and aptly referred to the apologists as forgettable. They bring nothing novel or interesting to the debate and seem rather subdued. In fact, they relied on some rather hackish Campus Crusader tactics at some moments of the debate, too. For example, one of the apologists (I forget which one) practically dropped the mic when he showed the atheists to be agnostics about the existence of god. Lamesvilleeeeeee. Atheists can be agnostics, these things are not mutually exclusive. Another trick apologists use is to define atheism as being the active denial of god's existence. This is not just cheap for the obvious reasons, but it further shows these guys don't even know how to cater to an audience, which being at a secular conference meant that the audience was largely secular. These types of tactics don't and didn't work out too well in the debate but they shoulda known better.
But it wasn't just the apologists who mucked up. The "no" side, atheists Matt Dillahunty and Christopher DiCarlo, missed sooo many opportunities, too. For one thing, the apologists were right when they called the other side out for not presenting an argument. IIRC they attempted to say that the no side didn't show how god could not exist - something they didn't necessarily have to - but instead of setting up a case or arguments, DillaCarlo just set up a bunch of qualifications and clarified general concepts about the nature of demonstrating things, knowing things, etc. etc. After this, though they use the bulk of their opening to preemptively address the fallacious tactics the apologists might use in the next segments. Some of those arguments HornChamber did use, so can't give DillaCarlo too much crap for that, I suppose. (I like keep having to correct what I really want to write, which is DillaHorner, btw).
Anyways, Dillahorn--I mean, DillaCarlo, then demonstrate that their side was not obligated to disprove anything but rather demonstrate that what the other side has presented isn't convincing enough to demonstrate the existence of god--but any closure was lost from this point because they never link this to why this leads them to atheism.
The cross-exam seemed too short and the apologists were savvy enough to play up the apparent lack of argument given by DillaCarlo in the earlier segment. The arguments about objective morality were especially cringe-worthy and mucked up by both sides.
The Q&A was kind of a let down as well, there were some incoherent and/or cliched questions asked of both sides.
The moderator was pretty good though, I can say that!
Technical
The audio has some buzzing at some points but it is still clear.
Post Revision Notes
7-7 to 9-26-2013 I cleaned up the review a little and clarified some of my observations.
8-15-2015 I'm embarrassed at how long I let such an atrociously written review stay up online without another quick edit. Augh.
2.5 stars. LAME ATHEISTS PERFORMANCE
Augh, so many instances of dropping the ball were seen in this one, gang. Both sides don't do absolutely miserable, but rather they seem to miss great opportunities and squander potential greatness.
PZ Meyers made reviewed the debate and aptly referred to the apologists as forgettable. They bring nothing novel or interesting to the debate and seem rather subdued. In fact, they relied on some rather hackish Campus Crusader tactics at some moments of the debate, too. For example, one of the apologists (I forget which one) practically dropped the mic when he showed the atheists to be agnostics about the existence of god. Lamesvilleeeeeee. Atheists can be agnostics, these things are not mutually exclusive. Another trick apologists use is to define atheism as being the active denial of god's existence. This is not just cheap for the obvious reasons, but it further shows these guys don't even know how to cater to an audience, which being at a secular conference meant that the audience was largely secular. These types of tactics don't and didn't work out too well in the debate but they shoulda known better.
But it wasn't just the apologists who mucked up. The "no" side, atheists Matt Dillahunty and Christopher DiCarlo, missed sooo many opportunities, too. For one thing, the apologists were right when they called the other side out for not presenting an argument. IIRC they attempted to say that the no side didn't show how god could not exist - something they didn't necessarily have to - but instead of setting up a case or arguments, DillaCarlo just set up a bunch of qualifications and clarified general concepts about the nature of demonstrating things, knowing things, etc. etc. After this, though they use the bulk of their opening to preemptively address the fallacious tactics the apologists might use in the next segments. Some of those arguments HornChamber did use, so can't give DillaCarlo too much crap for that, I suppose. (I like keep having to correct what I really want to write, which is DillaHorner, btw).
Anyways, Dillahorn--I mean, DillaCarlo, then demonstrate that their side was not obligated to disprove anything but rather demonstrate that what the other side has presented isn't convincing enough to demonstrate the existence of god--but any closure was lost from this point because they never link this to why this leads them to atheism.
The cross-exam seemed too short and the apologists were savvy enough to play up the apparent lack of argument given by DillaCarlo in the earlier segment. The arguments about objective morality were especially cringe-worthy and mucked up by both sides.
The Q&A was kind of a let down as well, there were some incoherent and/or cliched questions asked of both sides.
The moderator was pretty good though, I can say that!
Technical
The audio has some buzzing at some points but it is still clear.
Post Revision Notes
7-7 to 9-26-2013 I cleaned up the review a little and clarified some of my observations.
8-15-2015 I'm embarrassed at how long I let such an atrociously written review stay up online without another quick edit. Augh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)