One of my favs is Richard Carrier and he will regularly run online courses in topics related to the Great Debate. Anyways, he is having a Counter-Apologetics course in January which teaches you how to tackle the arguments against God. I think John Shook is involved, too (in an email about Carrier's previous course on the topic Carrier mentioned that the upcoming one would have Shook helping him with the content).
The course will also cover Muslim apologetics, something I was interested in and I'm sure to enjoy as well.
The course is big on Bayes arguments but after a brief look over the course website I was hoping for more information on the art of speaking or debating persuasively. The required text, Atheist Primer reads well so far.
Well yeah so it was suggested to me to summarize my experiences with the course and I hope I can do that here. It costs 60 bucks if you all want to join so check it out!
Showing posts with label Non-Debate Post. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Non-Debate Post. Show all posts
Monday, December 28, 2015
Friday, September 18, 2015
A CC'd Email to William Lane Craig, jesus4punx@bible.tru, reasonedreasoner99@compumegaserv.net, glitterkitty989...
A few days ago Jeffery Jay Lowder, former pres of the Internet Infidels, made a blog post asking William Lane Craig to take up his offer on a debate on whether or not God exists or on God-based morality.
HERE is the post. Following his message to Craig, JJL lists all the people who support the debate.
Don't worry Lowder, I know you read this blog. I got you too, man. Add me to the list. I have an MA.
Dear Dr Craig,
Bill, can I call you Bill?
Look Bill, Jeffery Jay Lowder has been talking a lot of talk over the years about his debate abilities. He definitely devastated Phil Fernandes in their debate on Theism vs Naturalism. But that debate was against Phil Fernandes, in 1999, Lowder went first, and was preaching to the choir at a skeptics convention or something.
JJL later debated Kevin Vandergriff, but that debate was a bit of a let down ultimately, though extremely informative. Also, Vandergriff seems to be a minor leaguer, the debate was in a format that allowed an entire week between segments to prep, and JJL still got to go first. I also think JJL picked a pretty liberal Christian to take on (or vice versa, I dunno how the debate was set up). In that debate, JJL was pretty much given evolution and morality and the latter topic I think you Bill are very good at tackling in a debate setting.
Anyways, JJL did come out well in those debates but he doesn't seem to have too much experience going head to head against apologists like yourself. I want to see him debate more but he seems to be waiting to get into the thick of things only if he can debate you (or has a life and doesn't want it to just be debating apologists everywhere unless it counts).
Come on, you debated Hitchens because he has a lot of clout and you're not gonna get a chance against Dawkins and for the obvious reasons. Plus, the Horsemen are old news, anyways. Why not take on the guy who despite not having a lot of religious debating experience does have a lot of experience interacting with the topics AND does have experience in high school debate.
Just debate the guy. He's willing to do it at a college campus and debate the topics you want to debate. Weren't you stoked when you went up against Jesseph awhile ago? He too had high school and college debate experience. Come on Bill!
TTYL
JC
HERE is the post. Following his message to Craig, JJL lists all the people who support the debate.
Don't worry Lowder, I know you read this blog. I got you too, man. Add me to the list. I have an MA.
Dear Dr Craig,
Bill, can I call you Bill?
Look Bill, Jeffery Jay Lowder has been talking a lot of talk over the years about his debate abilities. He definitely devastated Phil Fernandes in their debate on Theism vs Naturalism. But that debate was against Phil Fernandes, in 1999, Lowder went first, and was preaching to the choir at a skeptics convention or something.
JJL later debated Kevin Vandergriff, but that debate was a bit of a let down ultimately, though extremely informative. Also, Vandergriff seems to be a minor leaguer, the debate was in a format that allowed an entire week between segments to prep, and JJL still got to go first. I also think JJL picked a pretty liberal Christian to take on (or vice versa, I dunno how the debate was set up). In that debate, JJL was pretty much given evolution and morality and the latter topic I think you Bill are very good at tackling in a debate setting.
Anyways, JJL did come out well in those debates but he doesn't seem to have too much experience going head to head against apologists like yourself. I want to see him debate more but he seems to be waiting to get into the thick of things only if he can debate you (or has a life and doesn't want it to just be debating apologists everywhere unless it counts).
Come on, you debated Hitchens because he has a lot of clout and you're not gonna get a chance against Dawkins and for the obvious reasons. Plus, the Horsemen are old news, anyways. Why not take on the guy who despite not having a lot of religious debating experience does have a lot of experience interacting with the topics AND does have experience in high school debate.
Just debate the guy. He's willing to do it at a college campus and debate the topics you want to debate. Weren't you stoked when you went up against Jesseph awhile ago? He too had high school and college debate experience. Come on Bill!
TTYL
JC
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Brief Post-Debate Recap
Okay so I went on the show yesterday and thought I did okay. I think I did alright in the Resurrection debate but was too scattered or didn't have the best delivery.
I also felt overall I came off as too much of a pushover. It'll make sense when you listen to it. I get the impression that Vocab Malone read my last blog post because he was extremely gracious about giving me time to say some things and we even went over time. In general 30 minutes is not enough time to debate such an interesting issue.
Also, Vocab totally did his homework and recognized that my argument was pretty much a reworded presentation of Arif Ahmed's first argument from his debate with Habermas, specifically I used the same article. Totes felt lame about that but not so much because right before the debate Ahmed said it was cool the way I put it and that I used it.
Still, I KNEW it felt kinda lame using the same article but after looking for ever for another (especially one more recent) I couldn't find one that did just refer back to the Buckhout 1975 article. It's pretty influential and the experiment it describes is just so perfect for getting the point across.
The other hosts were very cool, I'm glad I got to interact with them in the first episode but I think I just came off way too awkward in that episode so I haven't listened to it since I first converted the audio.
I won't release the audio until they do because it's their show but I'll let you know when it comes out. It won't be for almost a month though, I think in October.
Word of the day for all of us: "tease". I think I heard Vocab, myself, and the cohost Vermon all say that word at least once.
Also, here's a sketch I made while listening to the show in case you can't wait to hear it.
I also felt overall I came off as too much of a pushover. It'll make sense when you listen to it. I get the impression that Vocab Malone read my last blog post because he was extremely gracious about giving me time to say some things and we even went over time. In general 30 minutes is not enough time to debate such an interesting issue.
Also, Vocab totally did his homework and recognized that my argument was pretty much a reworded presentation of Arif Ahmed's first argument from his debate with Habermas, specifically I used the same article. Totes felt lame about that but not so much because right before the debate Ahmed said it was cool the way I put it and that I used it.
Still, I KNEW it felt kinda lame using the same article but after looking for ever for another (especially one more recent) I couldn't find one that did just refer back to the Buckhout 1975 article. It's pretty influential and the experiment it describes is just so perfect for getting the point across.
The other hosts were very cool, I'm glad I got to interact with them in the first episode but I think I just came off way too awkward in that episode so I haven't listened to it since I first converted the audio.
I won't release the audio until they do because it's their show but I'll let you know when it comes out. It won't be for almost a month though, I think in October.
Word of the day for all of us: "tease". I think I heard Vocab, myself, and the cohost Vermon all say that word at least once.
Also, here's a sketch I made while listening to the show in case you can't wait to hear it.
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Me in a debate
Tomorrow I am going to do two 30 minute shows on Urban Theologian Radio with Vocab Malone, Vermon Pierre, and Bob Korljan. Vocab is the one I will be debating the resurrection about and I will also have more of a discussion with in the first show.
In their most recent episode about Mormonism they mention that there is another episode they are having with their Mormon guest that will air next week. So I think my episodes will not air for at least two weeks...if they're any good.
Stomach Butterflies
I am nervous as hell for this. I feel I know my stuff but after the past few weeks of talking with Christians and Muslims over Skype and teasing out the reasons why I am an atheist, I do not feel like I am very articulate or persuasive.
I wrote down all the stuff I want to say based on the email exchange I've had with Vocab and listening to some of his debates and reading a few things he's written. From what I can tell he is very sincere and charming but I think he holds some pretty dubious views about some topics. I don't think I'll change his views, but that's not really the point of going on the show.
Technical Things I'm Worried About
After listening to the debates from their past radio show, Back Pack Radio, it also seems like I'm going to have to deal with having less air time to state what I have to say and will have to worry about commercial breaks. But this will be worse for me because those shows were 45 minutes long and each show I'm on will only be 29 minutes long.
For example, in Nick Covington's debate with Vocab on the resurrection, NC made a case with multiple reasons to support it. But just before the break, Vocab came in and said that NC, as an atheist needed to account for the problem of induction and the fact that his worldview is skewing the way he goes about the resurrection debate. Then a break came and all of Covington's case was left forgotten or he had to repeat himself. And again, the problem of induction took up a lot of the dialogue.
I've prepared for defusing this but I don't know if it was a good idea to prep for it because it might not even come up for me.
Content Issues
I also think Covington made his opening too long. He mentioned a lot of good stuff, but you gotta make sure you're working with the clock, you know when the commercials might come. I'm going to listen to some more episodes and figure out the commercial pattern and even ask before we start the show what the schedule is and have a timer next to me. Let's see if that works.
Like Covington, some of the things I need to flesh out seems like they're going to be most forceful if I can say them all at once. I would like to mention eyewitness testimony but think it's important that I give the ramifications associated with it. But because this is an informal thing, I might have to stop and elaborate and/or respond for each point.
When I talk normally off a script, it takes me a bit to say what I want to say. I don't like it and it involves a lot of pauses. I also ummmm a lot more and say "like" and "I mean" a lot, too. Normally I'm used to talking to people and getting stuck on supplying a reason but just say "You know what I'm talking about, right?" I can't rely on that for these shows and even things that seem quite basic to me have turned out to be completely alien to the people I have talked to and it seems like I need to also be prepared to elaborate on things that seem more self-evident and have something written out in case that happens.
Presentation Issues
I have a pretty lame voice, which sucks. There's no combating that, besides building on the things I can control. But I think I come off as unlikable, too. Or rather, I come off as not too bright and don't make it clear enough that I'm joking. This could be elaborated upon but the point is that I need more time to become lovable, which sucks if I'm going to have less than a half an hour to do so.
In their most recent episode about Mormonism they mention that there is another episode they are having with their Mormon guest that will air next week. So I think my episodes will not air for at least two weeks...if they're any good.
Stomach Butterflies
I am nervous as hell for this. I feel I know my stuff but after the past few weeks of talking with Christians and Muslims over Skype and teasing out the reasons why I am an atheist, I do not feel like I am very articulate or persuasive.
I wrote down all the stuff I want to say based on the email exchange I've had with Vocab and listening to some of his debates and reading a few things he's written. From what I can tell he is very sincere and charming but I think he holds some pretty dubious views about some topics. I don't think I'll change his views, but that's not really the point of going on the show.
Technical Things I'm Worried About
After listening to the debates from their past radio show, Back Pack Radio, it also seems like I'm going to have to deal with having less air time to state what I have to say and will have to worry about commercial breaks. But this will be worse for me because those shows were 45 minutes long and each show I'm on will only be 29 minutes long.
For example, in Nick Covington's debate with Vocab on the resurrection, NC made a case with multiple reasons to support it. But just before the break, Vocab came in and said that NC, as an atheist needed to account for the problem of induction and the fact that his worldview is skewing the way he goes about the resurrection debate. Then a break came and all of Covington's case was left forgotten or he had to repeat himself. And again, the problem of induction took up a lot of the dialogue.
I've prepared for defusing this but I don't know if it was a good idea to prep for it because it might not even come up for me.
Content Issues
I also think Covington made his opening too long. He mentioned a lot of good stuff, but you gotta make sure you're working with the clock, you know when the commercials might come. I'm going to listen to some more episodes and figure out the commercial pattern and even ask before we start the show what the schedule is and have a timer next to me. Let's see if that works.
Like Covington, some of the things I need to flesh out seems like they're going to be most forceful if I can say them all at once. I would like to mention eyewitness testimony but think it's important that I give the ramifications associated with it. But because this is an informal thing, I might have to stop and elaborate and/or respond for each point.
When I talk normally off a script, it takes me a bit to say what I want to say. I don't like it and it involves a lot of pauses. I also ummmm a lot more and say "like" and "I mean" a lot, too. Normally I'm used to talking to people and getting stuck on supplying a reason but just say "You know what I'm talking about, right?" I can't rely on that for these shows and even things that seem quite basic to me have turned out to be completely alien to the people I have talked to and it seems like I need to also be prepared to elaborate on things that seem more self-evident and have something written out in case that happens.
Presentation Issues
I have a pretty lame voice, which sucks. There's no combating that, besides building on the things I can control. But I think I come off as unlikable, too. Or rather, I come off as not too bright and don't make it clear enough that I'm joking. This could be elaborated upon but the point is that I need more time to become lovable, which sucks if I'm going to have less than a half an hour to do so.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Filler Post: Matt Dillahunty is thoughtful and has some great advice about debates
Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience has an on-going project which you all should check out and donate money to...because of many reasons but mostly because I told you to!
He also has a great video about debating HERE.
No review here, just a link to a video with tips and thoughts about debating.
It gives great insights into public, formal and informal and interpersonal debating. I'll hold off on reviewing it sans saying I actually wished he stuck to talking about the debate process itself, more. Near the end it seemed like he branched off to talking about how you should debate with your friends and family and people you care about. His advice on that was solid, but when I saw the video I watched it because I wanted to hear about how he approached public debates.
Dang it, I said I wouldn't review the video but I just did. I guess 5 Stars! Watch it!
He also has a great video about debating HERE.
No review here, just a link to a video with tips and thoughts about debating.
It gives great insights into public, formal and informal and interpersonal debating. I'll hold off on reviewing it sans saying I actually wished he stuck to talking about the debate process itself, more. Near the end it seemed like he branched off to talking about how you should debate with your friends and family and people you care about. His advice on that was solid, but when I saw the video I watched it because I wanted to hear about how he approached public debates.
Dang it, I said I wouldn't review the video but I just did. I guess 5 Stars! Watch it!
Monday, August 24, 2015
Quick Updates
Blog Apologetic Tract
I know it's lame but since I have been trying to make this a more actively running blog and trying to make my older posts not read like a 14 year old idiot actually writes these reviews AND since my awareness of the topics and the debates and debaters has grown significantly, I have decided to re-release older reviews as remastered ones on this blog.
I hate that WinteryKnight does this with his stupid "edgy summaries of debates" posts and because of that I've been holding off on doing this, but dang it, my mind has changed a lot on some of these debates too!
So the remastered posts are only going to be done if I significantly added a lot to the original review. And I know that the bulk of this blog is only from 2013, but that's the only set of reviews I'll consider remastering.
Ultimately I justified this decision by realizing it will mean that this blog well definitely have at least ONE debate review per week. So I've scheduled most of the posts I've remastered for weeks in advanced when I think I might not be able to push out a legit new review.
Speaking of new reviews...
Oh boy the new debates that will show up!
I have debates for Loftus, more for Ahmed, Carroll, Novella, Beahan, Price, and Barker! And...
Concerning my debate challenge
I've been having a lot of troubz getting someone to debate me. So I'm thinking of just releasing three videos which each have a 20 minute presentation on a various debate topic and see if people want to respond to that. The problem with that is that I want to do an audio/video debate and if I'm LUCKY my videos will only illicit written mentions on some blog.
So there are some updates. More reviews! For now, laugh at how funny it is that Hamza Tzortzis turns out to have been one of the leaked Ashley Madison accounts. I need to do a review of one of his debates. I wish the Arif Ahmed debate he did was actually available.
I know it's lame but since I have been trying to make this a more actively running blog and trying to make my older posts not read like a 14 year old idiot actually writes these reviews AND since my awareness of the topics and the debates and debaters has grown significantly, I have decided to re-release older reviews as remastered ones on this blog.
I hate that WinteryKnight does this with his stupid "edgy summaries of debates" posts and because of that I've been holding off on doing this, but dang it, my mind has changed a lot on some of these debates too!
So the remastered posts are only going to be done if I significantly added a lot to the original review. And I know that the bulk of this blog is only from 2013, but that's the only set of reviews I'll consider remastering.
Ultimately I justified this decision by realizing it will mean that this blog well definitely have at least ONE debate review per week. So I've scheduled most of the posts I've remastered for weeks in advanced when I think I might not be able to push out a legit new review.
Speaking of new reviews...
Oh boy the new debates that will show up!
I have debates for Loftus, more for Ahmed, Carroll, Novella, Beahan, Price, and Barker! And...
Concerning my debate challenge
I've been having a lot of troubz getting someone to debate me. So I'm thinking of just releasing three videos which each have a 20 minute presentation on a various debate topic and see if people want to respond to that. The problem with that is that I want to do an audio/video debate and if I'm LUCKY my videos will only illicit written mentions on some blog.
So there are some updates. More reviews! For now, laugh at how funny it is that Hamza Tzortzis turns out to have been one of the leaked Ashley Madison accounts. I need to do a review of one of his debates. I wish the Arif Ahmed debate he did was actually available.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Blog Updates!
I am constantly changing and fine-tuning this blog. I have almost 20 debate reviews in draft form and at least one page ready to be published.
The Updates
I have decided to include a few things in my posts:
Debate Length - now you'll see: ( audio | video | length ) with all the posts I make.
I have also decided to note when the first speaker begins, some of these debates have 10 minutes + of introduction and it just gets too annoying.
Links to debates that might interest you if you enjoyed the debate review. This one I am still trying to figure out how to do properly, without cluttering up all my posts.
Links to the debaters' websites so you can read more about the debaters.
I have also decided to be more harsh about my scores, I have even gone back and lowered (slightly) my score for a few of the debates I have already discussed.
Changes of note
New Page: Good Places to Start
I fixed the dead links for the debates that I host.
I added a few more mini-reviews to my Craig Reviews post.
I link to a handout used by Arif Ahmed in this debate.
I will also try to add links to follow-up discussions relevant to the debates. In an email dialogue with Dr. Hector Avalos, he suggested I do this and gave me a bunch of links he wanted to see included to the reviews I have posted on his debates with Weikart. I have done this every now and then but I think I will try to do it more consistently in the future.
Finally, I think I might switch to Wordpress or something. Blogger is too annoying, the formatting is clunky and on big posts (like my Craig reviews post) it gets glitchy and will say that an error has occurred in publishing or saving a post - it's so annoying. I also don't like how I cannot easily change the link-opening options...I dunno, school has a-started and I might not post so regularly so it might not be worth it to try and figure out a whole 'nuther blogging site like Wordpress. Whatever.
The Updates
I have decided to include a few things in my posts:
Debate Length - now you'll see: ( audio | video | length ) with all the posts I make.
I have also decided to note when the first speaker begins, some of these debates have 10 minutes + of introduction and it just gets too annoying.
Links to debates that might interest you if you enjoyed the debate review. This one I am still trying to figure out how to do properly, without cluttering up all my posts.
Links to the debaters' websites so you can read more about the debaters.
I have also decided to be more harsh about my scores, I have even gone back and lowered (slightly) my score for a few of the debates I have already discussed.
Changes of note
New Page: Good Places to Start
I fixed the dead links for the debates that I host.
I added a few more mini-reviews to my Craig Reviews post.
I link to a handout used by Arif Ahmed in this debate.
I will also try to add links to follow-up discussions relevant to the debates. In an email dialogue with Dr. Hector Avalos, he suggested I do this and gave me a bunch of links he wanted to see included to the reviews I have posted on his debates with Weikart. I have done this every now and then but I think I will try to do it more consistently in the future.
Finally, I think I might switch to Wordpress or something. Blogger is too annoying, the formatting is clunky and on big posts (like my Craig reviews post) it gets glitchy and will say that an error has occurred in publishing or saving a post - it's so annoying. I also don't like how I cannot easily change the link-opening options...I dunno, school has a-started and I might not post so regularly so it might not be worth it to try and figure out a whole 'nuther blogging site like Wordpress. Whatever.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Dream Debates: Favorites, Lists and Teams Up-Dated 8-15-2013
This is a list of a) who I would like to see debate the pillars of theism or other topics b) debate against each other and c) like to see more debates from/of/whatever.
I think most theists agree that Craig is the best apologists they have to offer (with solid reason, too) so I will use him mostly as a reference.
Favorites:
Hitch- Was always a fun listen, the only of the "four horsemen" that I actually like* in terms of debate.
Example: Hitch v Sharpton
Carrier- Carrier is just full of knowledge, he is also very good about staying on point and I don't think I have ever heard him be condescending at all and he has been treated pretty poorly in some of his debates in the past.
Example: Carrier v Licona and Carrier v Jacoby
Ken Miller- My favorite Evolution Proponent. Miller has been doing this since at least 1981 against the famous Creationist Henry Morris.
Example: Firing Line Debate and Miller v Nelson
Craig- Oh William Lane Craig. I do not think this guy is as great as almost everyone says he is but he is pretty close. I enjoy hearing his debates for his rebuttal and closing skill. His arguments and openings are all pretty much the same.
Example: Craig v Avalos and Craig v Stenger 2010
Dinesh- Dinesh is just fun. He knows how to read his audience and even though he says the same damn jokes he still is fairly charming. The one argument of his that I have heard him use at least against Hitch that I have given more thought and decided that I agree with is when Hitch talks about Stalin taking advantage of the religious context that painted pre-Soviet Russia. Dinesh is right that religion shouldn't be blamed for Stalin's douchebagery. Of course Dinesh is wrong about blaming atheism but that's another point :P
Example: Dinesh v Shermer and Dinesh v Hitch 2007
Need to Debate More:
Sean McDowell- I've only heard this guy against Corbett and maybe Corbett was just so awful that he was the perfect foil for McDowell, but I doubt it. McDowell is charming and organized, I wanna hear more from him.
Mark Roberts- Roberts is famous in the debunking community, he knows a lot of stuff on 911 and is very good at relying this sometimes tedious information in a coherent and understandable manner. He has "retired" so to speak and I can appreciate that. But if David Ray Griffin would debate him I bet he would come back.
Jeffrey Jay Lowder- Lowder knows his stuff and is cogent and quick on his feet. It's a shame that I have only heard one of his debates and it wasn't against the greatest opponent.
Example: Lowder v Fernandes
Jeremy Beahan- Here is a guy who sounds very organized was able to hold his own against a decent rhetorician if not a great apologist. I would like to see him challenged more.
PZ Myers- I wanna hear him talk more about evolution in his debates.
Example: PZ v Simmons on KKMS 2008
Austin Dacey- Dacey, AFAIK, has only debated Craig, and has only done so twice. What makes this dearth of debate history more of a crime is that Dacey threw down with Craig both times and this is agreed on by nerds like me on both sides of the debate. Even Craig has applauded Dacey's skill. Dacey is also associated with CFI and so I am just absolutely perplexed that he hasn't done more stuff!
Example: Dacey v Craig 2005
Keith Parsons- Another philosopher who has apparently only decided to come out of the academic shadows to devastate Craig once and then wash his hands of the practice. Parsons is full of passion and good humor. The only debate I have heard of his is from 1998 with Craig, linked below! What a shame.
Example: Parsons v Craig 1998
Shelly Kagan- Another academic to come out of no where and throw down with Craig and to come out the victor. The guy has free lectures online but I wanna see this guy debate ethics more because it really is frustrating that so many people think that the divine command argument for morality is so convincing. In his debate with Craig, Kagan outlined contractualism, a moral philosophy that I hold to and one that Craig was unable to dismiss.
Example: Kagan v Craig 2009
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong- In 1999 S-A debated Craig and won and he wrote a great book (well, great so far) with Craig styled after an epic debate. I am in the process of searching for more of this guy but if he was such a tough opponent of Craig's as suggested on the interbuttz, I would think I wouldn't have as much trouble finding more from this guy as I apparently am, atm.
Example: Craig v S-A 1999
Arif Ahmed- Debate more! Compared to the others above, Ahmed has been debating a little bit more, including twice against Craig and two appearances on Unbelievable. Still not enough for a debate junky as yours truly.
Example: Ahmed v Habermas 2008 and Ahmed v Craig 2009
Atheist Dream Team:
Jeffery Jay Lowder
Jeremy Beahan
Arif Ahmed
Matt Dillahunty
Austin Dacey
Richard Carrier
Bart Ehrman
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
Dream Debate Matches:
Ehrman v Carrier - Both have recently been going at it in print form concerning the existence of Jesus. Not only are both skilled debaters but this topic would be interesting to see hashed out by two skeptics of Jesus' miracles.
Richard Dawkins v WLC - I know that Craig has been wanting this for years and I thought I wouldn't buy too much into this issue too much as I don't want this blog to be about flame wars and blog drama BUT I think that they should debate on evolution vs ID. Craig did one debate on this topic with a theistic evolutionist Ayala. In a response to a question I sent him on RF Craig mentioned this about the Ayala debate:
Ahmed v Dinesh D'Souza - I bet that Ahmed would be able to throwdown with Dinesh, Ahmed is full of humor and interesting.
Dillahunty v Dinesh D'Souza - Matt would be able to counter the more bizarre arguments used by Dinesh and I think most would agree that this would be a fun debate to see.
Dillahunty v WLC - Probably won't happen because of Craig's PhD only debate rule but I would like to hear it and again, I think most would agree on that point.
Lowder v WLC - This dream debate has been an on going wish of others as well. Craig has made exceptions to his rule in the past, I think he should at the very least against Lowder.
Lowder v Dinesh - Again, Lowder could definitely hold his own against Dinesh. Picture the atheist version of Craig against Dinesh, that's what I see.
Roberts v David Ray Griffin - Griffin is supposed to be the most respectable Truth Movement leader out there. When he has debated I think he usually gets beaten up pretty badly and this is just from people who are experts on 911 CTs. Roberts is an expert so it would be nice to see this thing happen.
Roberts v Michael Berger - Berger is probably the best-sounding 911 Truther. He was more into it (I think) a few years ago so I don't think that two people no longer interested in the movement will be willing to come back and debate this topic. Le sigh.
Dillahunty v Friel - I feel as though I don't need to explain this one...so I won't.
Rematches:
Ahmed v Craig - I bet this one would be a good one, they last debated in 2005 and barely touched each others' direct arguments in their Oxford debate. Next time Craig tours the UK I bet this could be set up.
Avalos v Craig - A few things were not addressed in the previous debate and Avalos is one of the few guys to
Carrier v Craig
Ehrman v Craig
Dacey v Craig
Roberts v Gage
Kagan v Craig
Parsons v Craig
I think most theists agree that Craig is the best apologists they have to offer (with solid reason, too) so I will use him mostly as a reference.
Favorites:
Hitch- Was always a fun listen, the only of the "four horsemen" that I actually like* in terms of debate.
Example: Hitch v Sharpton
Carrier- Carrier is just full of knowledge, he is also very good about staying on point and I don't think I have ever heard him be condescending at all and he has been treated pretty poorly in some of his debates in the past.
Example: Carrier v Licona and Carrier v Jacoby
Ken Miller- My favorite Evolution Proponent. Miller has been doing this since at least 1981 against the famous Creationist Henry Morris.
Example: Firing Line Debate and Miller v Nelson
Craig- Oh William Lane Craig. I do not think this guy is as great as almost everyone says he is but he is pretty close. I enjoy hearing his debates for his rebuttal and closing skill. His arguments and openings are all pretty much the same.
Example: Craig v Avalos and Craig v Stenger 2010
Dinesh- Dinesh is just fun. He knows how to read his audience and even though he says the same damn jokes he still is fairly charming. The one argument of his that I have heard him use at least against Hitch that I have given more thought and decided that I agree with is when Hitch talks about Stalin taking advantage of the religious context that painted pre-Soviet Russia. Dinesh is right that religion shouldn't be blamed for Stalin's douchebagery. Of course Dinesh is wrong about blaming atheism but that's another point :P
Example: Dinesh v Shermer and Dinesh v Hitch 2007
Need to Debate More:
Sean McDowell- I've only heard this guy against Corbett and maybe Corbett was just so awful that he was the perfect foil for McDowell, but I doubt it. McDowell is charming and organized, I wanna hear more from him.
Mark Roberts- Roberts is famous in the debunking community, he knows a lot of stuff on 911 and is very good at relying this sometimes tedious information in a coherent and understandable manner. He has "retired" so to speak and I can appreciate that. But if David Ray Griffin would debate him I bet he would come back.
Jeffrey Jay Lowder- Lowder knows his stuff and is cogent and quick on his feet. It's a shame that I have only heard one of his debates and it wasn't against the greatest opponent.
Example: Lowder v Fernandes
Jeremy Beahan- Here is a guy who sounds very organized was able to hold his own against a decent rhetorician if not a great apologist. I would like to see him challenged more.
PZ Myers- I wanna hear him talk more about evolution in his debates.
Example: PZ v Simmons on KKMS 2008
Austin Dacey- Dacey, AFAIK, has only debated Craig, and has only done so twice. What makes this dearth of debate history more of a crime is that Dacey threw down with Craig both times and this is agreed on by nerds like me on both sides of the debate. Even Craig has applauded Dacey's skill. Dacey is also associated with CFI and so I am just absolutely perplexed that he hasn't done more stuff!
Example: Dacey v Craig 2005
Keith Parsons- Another philosopher who has apparently only decided to come out of the academic shadows to devastate Craig once and then wash his hands of the practice. Parsons is full of passion and good humor. The only debate I have heard of his is from 1998 with Craig, linked below! What a shame.
Example: Parsons v Craig 1998
Shelly Kagan- Another academic to come out of no where and throw down with Craig and to come out the victor. The guy has free lectures online but I wanna see this guy debate ethics more because it really is frustrating that so many people think that the divine command argument for morality is so convincing. In his debate with Craig, Kagan outlined contractualism, a moral philosophy that I hold to and one that Craig was unable to dismiss.
Example: Kagan v Craig 2009
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong- In 1999 S-A debated Craig and won and he wrote a great book (well, great so far) with Craig styled after an epic debate. I am in the process of searching for more of this guy but if he was such a tough opponent of Craig's as suggested on the interbuttz, I would think I wouldn't have as much trouble finding more from this guy as I apparently am, atm.
Example: Craig v S-A 1999
Arif Ahmed- Debate more! Compared to the others above, Ahmed has been debating a little bit more, including twice against Craig and two appearances on Unbelievable. Still not enough for a debate junky as yours truly.
Example: Ahmed v Habermas 2008 and Ahmed v Craig 2009
Atheist Dream Team:
Jeffery Jay Lowder
Jeremy Beahan
Arif Ahmed
Matt Dillahunty
Austin Dacey
Richard Carrier
Bart Ehrman
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
Dream Debate Matches:
Ehrman v Carrier - Both have recently been going at it in print form concerning the existence of Jesus. Not only are both skilled debaters but this topic would be interesting to see hashed out by two skeptics of Jesus' miracles.
Richard Dawkins v WLC - I know that Craig has been wanting this for years and I thought I wouldn't buy too much into this issue too much as I don't want this blog to be about flame wars and blog drama BUT I think that they should debate on evolution vs ID. Craig did one debate on this topic with a theistic evolutionist Ayala. In a response to a question I sent him on RF Craig mentioned this about the Ayala debate:
My goal in this debate was, not to argue for Intelligent Design in biology, but merely to defend its viability against Ayala’s caricatures of it.Surely Craig thinks that Dawkins incorrectly represents ID when he talks about it and has more experience in popularizing evolution and defending it then Ayala probably has. I think debating evolution would be a great concession to lead to a legit debate between both Craig and Dawkins considering the former would have to debate on a topic that isn't his specialty and the latter would debate a topic that he's known for refusing in order to not lend it any validity.
Ahmed v Dinesh D'Souza - I bet that Ahmed would be able to throwdown with Dinesh, Ahmed is full of humor and interesting.
Dillahunty v Dinesh D'Souza - Matt would be able to counter the more bizarre arguments used by Dinesh and I think most would agree that this would be a fun debate to see.
Dillahunty v WLC - Probably won't happen because of Craig's PhD only debate rule but I would like to hear it and again, I think most would agree on that point.
Lowder v WLC - This dream debate has been an on going wish of others as well. Craig has made exceptions to his rule in the past, I think he should at the very least against Lowder.
Lowder v Dinesh - Again, Lowder could definitely hold his own against Dinesh. Picture the atheist version of Craig against Dinesh, that's what I see.
Roberts v David Ray Griffin - Griffin is supposed to be the most respectable Truth Movement leader out there. When he has debated I think he usually gets beaten up pretty badly and this is just from people who are experts on 911 CTs. Roberts is an expert so it would be nice to see this thing happen.
Roberts v Michael Berger - Berger is probably the best-sounding 911 Truther. He was more into it (I think) a few years ago so I don't think that two people no longer interested in the movement will be willing to come back and debate this topic. Le sigh.
Dillahunty v Friel - I feel as though I don't need to explain this one...so I won't.
Rematches:
Ahmed v Craig - I bet this one would be a good one, they last debated in 2005 and barely touched each others' direct arguments in their Oxford debate. Next time Craig tours the UK I bet this could be set up.
Avalos v Craig - A few things were not addressed in the previous debate and Avalos is one of the few guys to
Carrier v Craig
Ehrman v Craig
Dacey v Craig
Roberts v Gage
Kagan v Craig
Parsons v Craig
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)