This debate ( audio | video ) took place in 2003 at Hawaii U between Craig and Physicist Victor Stenger. The topic was "Is There a Good?"
4.25 stars. BEST
PhilVaz 5/5
CSA review: good
Ed the MSP review
Victor Stenger does better than most, he's a physicists and can better address the more sciency sounding arguments Craig throws out there than most. I further think he gave little ground and actually made a better (or more straightforward) quick* argument against the resurrection, especially since history is not his field.
But alas, Craig is just really good at having denser presentations and addressing a lot of information. Stenger's presentations just didn't come off as full of content as those of Dr. Craig.
Still, Stenger was pretty good in the Q&A portion of the debate as well. So I would rate this one up there with Dacey's first Craig debate, though Dacey was able to get a little more information out in his speeches compared to Stenger.
Stenger also debated Craig in 2010 and I want to listen to that one and review it soon!
A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!
*I say quick because there are better arguments that are put forth in other debates on that specific topic.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Barker v Friel Atheism v Christianity?
This debate ( audio ) between Dan Barker and Todd Friel
definitely features the worst audience of all time. OF ALL TIME. They clapped,
hooted and yelled out at anything and everything—worst than a Realtime with Bill Maher audience.
4 stars. BEST
Friel is a radio show host and he is a great one. That means he’s slimy and cheap and does nothing to add to the debate. He really just deteriates to begging the audience to become Xians and threatening them with hell. Barker is a great debater against this kind of crap but Friel’s despicableness and the audience’s obnoxiousness got him a tiny bit frazzled at times.
This is a fun debate, but it lacked a little bit
too much substance for me to give it a BEST rating. Friel starts off with
something that had me laughing out loud, though.
Technical: Good AQ
4 stars. BEST
Friel is a radio show host and he is a great one. That means he’s slimy and cheap and does nothing to add to the debate. He really just deteriates to begging the audience to become Xians and threatening them with hell. Barker is a great debater against this kind of crap but Friel’s despicableness and the audience’s obnoxiousness got him a tiny bit frazzled at times.
Technical: Good AQ
Hitch v Boteach DEUX BEST FUN TOP TEN
This debate ( audio | video | 1h 33m 26s ) features Hitch and Rabbi Boteach. It gets quite heated but is a lot of fun. I wish it were longer!
DB: 3m 50s
DB: 3m 50s
This is too fun of a debate. Hitchens is at his prime and
it’s obvious the crowd is completely with him. He doesn’t say anything unique
in his opening from the dozens of other debates he’s partook in (of which there
are plenty LINK), he caters to the flaws of Judaism a little more cause that
guy knows his audience.
Boteach HOLY CRAP Boteach. All the desperate religious
debate tactics come out of this guy. He also yells and spends a lot of time on
evolution. A lot of time on evolution. He even at one point uses Kent Hovind’s
argument that time is the god of atheism. He just sounds too embarrassingly
uninformed on the topic and Hitch does a good job on calling him out on it. If
you think I am spending too much time on Boteach’s evo argument it is because he spent so much time on it! Just
remember folks, even if, EVEN IF evolution turns out to be false, it doesn’t
prove there is a god.
Boteach calls Hitch out on claiming that an Israeli surgeon
refused to aid Muslims and was supported by the Israeli courts and this becomes
a very funny highlight of the debate.
Great debate for all the heat it generated, not the light.
Technical: Quiet AQ but there is a video too.
Dillahunty v Lucas Does God Exist?
This debate (audio | video) was supposed to be about the existence of god
but Lucas, right off the bat pretty much said that god exists and turned the
debate into a debate about morality. Dillahunty calls Lucas out on this and
apparently had to scrap all the counters (I would hope) he had prepared for all
the regular god arguments.
3 stars.
3 stars.
And so we have a debate on justifying objective morality. I
like these debates but a) this wasn’t a debate only on that topic b) Dillahunty
wasn’t prepared to only tackle that topic anyways c) Lucas wasn’t that
interesting of an apologist and d) I agree with Dillahunty about debate
formatting, the opening speeches should be the shortest, 20 minutes is just too
long imo.
Dillahunty also had the same issues in this debate that I
felt he had in the previous debate I reviewed. He’s super into TAG and you can
get more than you can handle in this debate he had with Matt Slick and he’s
super into, well, I’ll use the word he used several times to describe it: being
pedantic. This time he was a little better about presenting a positive case but
because the debate changed it seemed like that couldn’t be fleshed out.
The cross-exam was good, and by good, I mean terrible for
Lucas. Lucas really fell apart when it came to the slavery issue but can you
blame him? Slavery blows and his god was fine with it. This is a morally
corrupt position and Xians gotta stick to it, unfortunately. But again another
issue with Dillahunty came up, he was just too glib with his answers and too
tedious about definitions it seems. The debate ended up being about morality
but there are several different,
convincing and certainly better moral frameworks out there that Dillahunty
could have suggested or he could have even fleshed out the one Lucas attributed
to him (utilitarianism) or at least clarified the misconceptions Lucas made
about it.
Check this debate out if you enjoy hearing an apologist get
devastated but skip it if you want to see good debate performances.
Also, this is the second formal Dillahunty debate I’ve heard
and I’m pretty downtrodden, tbh. I honestly think he could take down WLC but
unless Dillahunty becomes Hitch or Harris status in popularity than we won’t
see that debate anytime soon. I got two more Dillahunty debates to listen to, I
hope they work out.
Technical: Good AQ. The audio I made has a section of
Dillahunty’s repeated but I don’t know if that occurs in the video or not.
Tyson v Rogan Moon Hoax [NSFW]
[Warning, there is a lot of language in this debate…bad
language*]
This is a debate/discussion ( audio | video ) between NdT and Comedian Joe
Rogan. Rogan is known for entertainment stuffs but he is also known for being a
total Moon Hoaxer.
He debated Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, on Penn Jillette’s show in 2007, twice. The first time Phil was the clear winner but the second time Rogan, well he didn’t come off as more convincing but he certainly got more points in and was louder.
4.25 stars. BEST
He debated Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, on Penn Jillette’s show in 2007, twice. The first time Phil was the clear winner but the second time Rogan, well he didn’t come off as more convincing but he certainly got more points in and was louder.
This was a different thing, though. Rogan didn’t get loud and
obnoxious and Tyson was his charming self as usual. Nothing new in terms of the
Moon Hoax debates goes. In fact, this was a general dialogue on conspiratorial
thinking though they definitely talk about specific claims and even watch
videos (good radio) and become quite impressed.
This is great because of how open-minded Rogan is to the
fact that he does believe something that is pretty crazy. I say check this one
out for Tyson’s general points on combating conspiracy theories and because of
the good nature behind the debate.
Phil Plait and Joe Rogan go more point to point and I detail
that in this post.
Technical: Great AQ but it is audio only.
*I lol’d irl at Rogan’s “fuckery a foot” comment.
Richard Weikart vs Hector Avalos on Unbelievable talking Hitler and Darwin PART DEUX 2011 BEST
I am a little annoyed that I only just now found out about
this ( audio | 1:20m ) debate. It’s a subject that interests me and Weikart is the only guy AFAIK
who attempts to make a scholarly argument for the claim that Darwin played a significant role in influence Nazism.
4.5 stars. If something was left from the case Weikart made for Darwin's above average influence on Nazi Ideology it's certainly gone in this debate. BEST
Technical
Great audio quality, this is always the case with Unbelievesies.
Update 8-15-2015 Clean up, clarified, expounded and added some links.
4.5 stars. If something was left from the case Weikart made for Darwin's above average influence on Nazi Ideology it's certainly gone in this debate. BEST
This is an Unbelievable episode and I don’t know why I don’t
listen to this show more. Well I do, the episodes that I have sat through were
pretty disappointing but there are just sooooo many of them that feature other
folks that I enjoy.
But I digress. Both Weikart and Avalos have debated this topic in the past, just after Expelled: No Intelligence in the Classroom came out in 2008. They debate on a US radio show in a shorter amount of time and in a more strict formal setting. I absolutely loved it, though Avalos came off as a bit cheap at times. Nonetheless, Avalos was pretty freaking devastating in demonstrating how vapid Weikart's claims are when put under scrutiny.
Now this debate was a bit weird for my normal Unbelievable listening experience in that the first part was set up as formal debate in the same way as the previous debate they had. They both pretty much said the same thing, Avalos more so than Weikart during their openings. They both accounted for some objections brought up by the other in their previous debate but I was a bit letdown that no nuanced move has arose in the three years since the last debate...though I wasn't surprised.
In general, Weikart points to the importance of the Nazi Eugenics beliefs which were most likely inspired by the racial German eugeneicists contemporary with Hitler when he was apparently most malleable for getting all his terrible ideas. Since the debate calls for Weikart to demonstrate that Darwin was more influential than Christianity, Weikart conceded that sure, semi-big Christian figures like Martin Luther or the then Pope did kind of support Hitler and receive support from Hitler (not in the case of Luther, though, haha) but, that's cause Hitler was a politician. In Hitler's private conversations and statements and expressed in the way the terrible Nazi reforms were taken out, they were clearly Darwinian...survival of the fittest, the weak die out, the strong survive.
Hector Avalos notes that it is almost certainly the case that Hitler's Nazi Ideology was fueled the most by Christian anti-semitism. As in the previous debate, Avalos lists all the terrible things Martin Luther mentions we should do with the Jews. He also points out that Hitler mentions Martin Luther as one of his heroes and never mentions Darwin or guys like Haeckel (I think on Haeckel, at least). And even notes that tactically, popularizing Nazism to the German masses wouldn't go too great if they printed out passages of The Origin of Species but it would if they printed out anti-semtetic theological tracts.
Now this debate was a bit weird for my normal Unbelievable listening experience in that the first part was set up as formal debate in the same way as the previous debate they had. They both pretty much said the same thing, Avalos more so than Weikart during their openings. They both accounted for some objections brought up by the other in their previous debate but I was a bit letdown that no nuanced move has arose in the three years since the last debate...though I wasn't surprised.
In general, Weikart points to the importance of the Nazi Eugenics beliefs which were most likely inspired by the racial German eugeneicists contemporary with Hitler when he was apparently most malleable for getting all his terrible ideas. Since the debate calls for Weikart to demonstrate that Darwin was more influential than Christianity, Weikart conceded that sure, semi-big Christian figures like Martin Luther or the then Pope did kind of support Hitler and receive support from Hitler (not in the case of Luther, though, haha) but, that's cause Hitler was a politician. In Hitler's private conversations and statements and expressed in the way the terrible Nazi reforms were taken out, they were clearly Darwinian...survival of the fittest, the weak die out, the strong survive.
Hector Avalos notes that it is almost certainly the case that Hitler's Nazi Ideology was fueled the most by Christian anti-semitism. As in the previous debate, Avalos lists all the terrible things Martin Luther mentions we should do with the Jews. He also points out that Hitler mentions Martin Luther as one of his heroes and never mentions Darwin or guys like Haeckel (I think on Haeckel, at least). And even notes that tactically, popularizing Nazism to the German masses wouldn't go too great if they printed out passages of The Origin of Species but it would if they printed out anti-semtetic theological tracts.
The only difference that I found interesting was in
Weikart’s opening and rebuttal. Weikart did something that I found smart and a
little more original. He shifted from only talking about the Jews in the Nazi
policy to mentioning how Christian anti-Semitism doesn’t account for the rest of the
racial hygiene policies implemented by the Nazis. Other ethnic
groups were sterilized and murdered, as well, though it does seem that the Jews were the big target. He does mention this stuff in the previous
debate but he really fleshes it out this time around.
Great audio quality, this is always the case with Unbelievesies.
Update 8-15-2015 Clean up, clarified, expounded and added some links.
Lynn, Scott, Ruse and Miller v Johnson, Behe, Buckley and Berlinski BEST TOP TEN
This ( audio | video ) is an epic debate on a show that I was too young to
know about and wish was still on: Firing
Line. It was about Intelligent Design and Evolution and took place in 1997.
It featured NCSE’s Eugenie Scott, Brown U Prof (and the best debater I know of
against ID and Creation) Kenneth Miller, Good-Humored Philosopher Michael Ruse
and Pastor-Lawyer Barry Lynn versus Cal Prof and Lawyer Phillip Johnson,
Irreducible Complexity Promoter and Prof Michael Behe, the late William F.
Buckley and douchey Philosopher and Mathematician David Berlinski. I know I was
nice to about all those guys but Berlinski but I hate that guy, sorry.
5 stars. BEST TOP TEN
Technical: Great AQ and there is a video but it is edited, the first 40 minutes(?) is cut out.
5 stars. BEST TOP TEN
See how epic this debate was? I took a whole paragraph just
on explaining who was in the debate. The debate format was also a lot of fun
and I really enjoyed it, it emphasized cross-examination and short intros and
conclusion speeches.
There are so many great things about this debate:
-Johnson is the biggest guy behind popularizing ID and I
think is known for making the infamous “Wedge Document”. I don’t think he does
these kinds of debates all that often, or I haven’t seen/heard them yet.*
-Barry Lynn is a great lawyer and definitely deflates the
other side’s arguments about the atheistic implications associated with
evolution by the fact that he’s a pastor albeit a super liberal one.
-Scott is a great promoter of science education, I suggest
you all listen to her other debates on the issue. She’s pretty glib about
things. She’s also an anthropologist so that makes her even more awesome.
-Ruse is a pretty interesting sounding guy, for a
philosopher I was surprised how down-to-earth his portion of the debate was.
-Miller is my favorite opponent of ID/Creation. He’s been
doing this since at least the 1980s against the likes of Henry Morris.
-Behe just isn’t good at debate, I think the best proponents
for ID are Stephen Meyer and Steve Fuller.
-Berlinski is good at sounding smart but there isn’t really
any substance to what he says a lot of the time. He also relies on a pretty
lame tactic that he further keeps bringing up. Here’s a little spoiler: he
focuses on the fossil record and Scott calls him out on using an article
supporting his claim that the fossil record sucks that was written in the
1960s. He definitely does the classic creationist argument:
Creationist: There is a gap in the fossil record.
Scientist: Oh well, we just found that…after 1966…
Creationist: You just made it worse, now there are two gaps:
what came before the thing you just found and what came after it? BAM.
Berlinski at one point even cites the fossil record of insects as being crappy. INSECTS. This
is a guy who has a bunch of degrees, one in biology, and he brings up the
fossil record of insects. When he brings it up Scott still addresses it and says that there is a well documented fossil
record for asdfasdf (the wasp, which is like the template for a lot of insect
species like ants and stuff)and that STILL wasn’t good enough for Berlinski and
Lynn calls him out on it.
-Buckley…I’m not sure about the actual show Firingline but I think he is a regular
on it and takes a side (I think usually the conservative side). He didn’t
really bring too much to the debate, just sounded cool, which I can’t really
fault him for if his role on the show is what I mentioned above. The other side
he was against were all noted for arguing on this specific topic and thus were
experts, he just chose the side that happened to have the crappy position.
This is the best evolution debate if not the best debate on
this entire site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)