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:

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

Ed Turner vs David Robertson & Richard Morgan on Unbelievable in 2009 CHECK

This debate ( audio | 1:20m ) happened on the Christian radio show Unbelievable in 2009. It pits atheist blogger (no longer active) Ed Turner vs Rev David Robertson and recent Christian convert from Islam, Richard Morgan (not the author, sadly).

3.5 Stars: Turner manages to hold his own against three Christian Archetypes: Slimy Apologist, Snarky Convert, and Lovable Moderate in this flustered radio debate. CHECK

APF review: 3.5/5

Holy crap this debate got my blood boiling. I agree with Damion's assessment of Robertson only I think that the term "prick" is too nice. I would call Robertson a douche, actually.

I also agree that Robertson lacks historical perspective in his arguments about how apparently any positive aspect we can identify in today's modern world can be sourced to the greatness that is Christianity. Such an ethnocentric and lazy picture of the world is depressing given that his educational background is in history. The concept of freedom of expression and democracy stem from Christianity? Get real!

This isn't the first bit of ethnocentrism I've listened to on Unbelievable nor is it the first instance of an ignorance on the historical past that I have heard spewed in all these religious-themed debates* on this site. Read your history folks - I mean, two words: ANCIENT GREECE.

Turner certainly holds his own between Robertson, Morgan, and the Host though Robertson did most of the talking. Turner certainly sounded slick repeatedly noting the statements made in Robertson's books and after reading the reviews of The Dawkins Letters I have to give Turner credit for reading anything by that guy. Turner spends a little too much defending the statements of Dawkins when he didn't really have to, however. Dawkins is a great writer/science promoter but I don't particularly find his insights outside of science all that interesting. It seems like Robertson shoulda stopped bringing up Dawkins too considering he kept having to qualify the fact that Dawkins does not endorse a morality based on evolution.

This is a frustrating debate to listen to, I enjoy that kind of stuff though, but if you don't, then skip it.

Technical
As usual, great audio quality, it's Unbelievable OHHHHHH.

*I'll note, I haven't heard Craig in any of his debates make such moronic claims as those made by Robertson. Never mind, Craig does it a lot, actually.

Revisions
8-6-2013 I lowered the score, I have too many high-starred debates. 
8-23-2015 Clear up some things, added more information about the debate itself, ya'know.

PZ v Simmons BEST FUN TOP TEN

This debate ( audio | 43m31s ) took place early in 2008 between outspoken New Atheist PZ Myers and the forgettable anti-Evolutionist Dr. Geoffrey Simmons on KKMS radio. The title of the debate was "Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues" and it was pretty fun!

DB: 3m48s

5 stars. BEST FUN TOP TEN

Apparently before the debate the debate topic was changed to the subject I mentioned above and this pissed PZ off most thoroughly. PZ sounds pretty angry on his blog but sounds like a giant teddy bear IRL but in the beginning of the debate he sounded like an adorably angry teddy bear at the change. I won't explain why he was angry because he does so, thoroughly.

Another thorough part of the debate was the destruction of Dr. Geoffry Simmons. The guy was simply not prepared and spewed the most pedestrian of Creationist arguments out there to which PZ devastated. I recall reading about this debate and read that even the anti-evo folk over at William Dembski's Uncommon Descent site were remarking at how terrible Simmons did in this debate.

This is too fun 'a debate. All ya'll should check it out. It's a shame that it was so short and it was on the radio. Radio hosts seem to feel the need to summarize what one debater just said to the other debater and this is evident here and in the Unbelievable episodes as well. I can understand that they do so because it's the radio, maybe but it sometimes it seems like a waste of time and so much more could be said if they just let the debate flow. But alas, this was still a great time!

One of the best!

Technical: Great AQ, it's radio!

Craig v Sinnott-Armstrong Does Evil and Suffering Disprove God? BEST CHECK

This debate ( audio | video | 1h 25m 57s ) took place in 1999 between Craig and Philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. They debated the Problem of Evil.

Debate begins around 5:53s in.

5 stars. BEST CHECK

PhilVaz 5/5
WK review: Xians always win*

I dunno why I haven’t heard this one before. It took place in 1999 and even more conservative Craig fans have applauded S-A’s performance. On CSA the book that these two have written is considered the best debate an atheist has put up against Craig and I think that book is an offshoot off of this debate.

Some of the reasons why Craig is considered to have lost this debate are evident in other debates, such as his debate with Kagan. This was more informal, as in the Kagan debate and more focused (on the problem of evil), as in the Bradley debate. But Craig certainly had home field advantage and he didn’t sound like he was working with material he isn’t comfortable with.

He also doesn’t go first, which I am just noting and could be wrong on this observation I am about to make. Craig is (rightly) on the affirmative and the affirmative usually goes first but this allows him to always shift the burden of proof, in a way. He usually lists things that the other side must address in order to meet their burden of proof and most of the time the opponent doesn’t address those things (whether they have to or not) or don’t address why they don’t have to meet such requirements.

But by simply going second, Craig can’t do this, and doesn’t too much in this debate. In fact, even when Craig says S-A didn’t address certain arguments, the more informal setting allowed S-A to call Craig out on it and Craig gave a pretty weak response.

S-A was pretty good, too. Like Parsons and Dacey I am totally bummed that S-A doesn’t have a lot of public debates out there, he certainly knows how to plainly convey his arguments and if you can devastate Craig like he did in this debate, then you should be out there more!

Great debate, one of the best – it’s a shame that it is one of the shorter ones.

Technical: Good AQ, this was done with the help of KKMS, a Christian Radio Station. If the Christians set it up, you know that the quality is gonna be good! The video is actual video of the event, not just the audio only!

A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!

*I highly suggest you look at the links available on WK's blog post.

Lowder v Fernandes Naturalism v Theism BEST

This debate ( audio | video | 2h07m59s ) took place in 1999 between Dr. Phil Fernandes and former Infidels.org President Jeffery Jay Lowder. The topic seemed to be Naturalism v Theism

4.5 stars BEST CHECK

Hallq's review

Nothing particularly groundbreaking occurred in this debate in terms of content, I also don't think that Fernandes has ever been a strong debater. This debate highlight's Lowder's performance. This is the only debate of Lowder's that I have been able to find and it is just such a shame. Lowder does a great job. He is very common sensical, cogent and organized. I definitely think Lowder would give Craig a run for his money.

But I guess Lowder was mostly active in the irreligious community in the 90s and kind of moved on and thus we are left with just this one debate of his. Augh, I wish he would come back, I think he could even give the more ridic debaters a run for their money (D'Souza) but I especially think he could throwdown with Craig. I am apparently not the only one who thinks this.

I also think that Lowder is stylistically similar to Craig in debate terms, he really drives the point home when Fernandes doesn't answer him in the same manner that Craig has perfected. I think I have over emphasized my impression of this tactic because I mostly enjoy the more informal types of debate and I don't think that this tactic can be thrown around in that format so I never hear it...or at least it was rare, now that I am trying to be more rigorous in my debate listening for this blog I am starting to hear it a lot and most of the time from Craig.

Poor Fernandes, he was out of his league with Lowder AND he was right when he compared himself to Daniel in the Lion's Den because this was at some secular conference.

Technical: Good AQ though there are some glitches here and there. It's an old video.

Craig and Williams v Ahmed and Copson BEST

This debate ( audio | video | 1h31m17s ) took place in 2011 between Craig, Peter Williams versus Arif Ahmed and Andrew Copson. It took place at the Cambridge Union Society and the debate motion was: "This House Believes that God is a Delusion".

4.5 stars. BEST

This debate certainly is interesting. It's set up reminds me of a more informal version of the Hitch Fry IQ2 Catholic debate. There were opening speeches, a long round of Q&A and then closing speeches. The difference was that the audience could interrupt the speakers to make a point. The debate is pretty intense.

I was glad to see that Craig and Ahmed were to debate each other but it seems like there was very little of them. I liked this debate so much that I am gonna relisten to it but if IIRC, Williams and Copson were the ones who I heard the most.

I guess I am not saying too much on the debate content, I should say that Craig certainly was on the defensive and was not able to come off as confident as he usually does, this definitely wasn't his style of debate. It seemed like he wasn't being taken too seriously, either. It almost seemed rude when there was laughter occurring during his closing speech. He also seemed annoyed that he wouldn't be able to reply to the points that Ahmed would address and complained that that wasn't how to conduct a debate. This just wasn't his style.

Also it seemed like more of a debate between Williams and Copson with Ahmed and Craig making assisting comments. Ahmed and Craig did get time to say the concluding parts but it just didn't seem like enough.

Another thing about the video is I guess Craig is seen with his hands shaking at certain parts. The top comment on YouTube is by Williams in response to a douchebag user's comment about Craig's shaking hands: "William Lane Craig suffers from a a neuromuscular disorder called Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease, which is why his hand shakes. This is a hereditary disorder that involves the slow disintegration of the myelin sheaths around the nerves, resulting in progressive muscular atrophy."

The limited interaction between the debaters is what keeps this from being a perfect debate but the interesting integration of audience participation is what makes me label it as one of the BEST debates.

This post will be fleshed out more later.

A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here! 

Craig v Brown in 2009

This debate ( audio ) took place in 2009 between Craig and Jim Brown on whether or not God exists...I think.

4 stars.

CSA review: bad
APF review: 4.5/5

I don't have too much to say about this one that hasn't been said in the two reviews I linked to above. I pretty much agree with both of them. Brown does come off as kind of ramble-y in his beginning speech and this always just looks a millions times as bad when up against Craig because of his skill. You gotta give Craig something to counter or he has the playing field to himself.

Brown catches up a little and really handles the Q&A (sans the Behe question, which is a total bummer because it is a pretty weak argument that has been addressed in so many different ways ever since Behe first talked about the flagella). But the questions were all kind of naive, for lack of a better word.

Brown is one of the better debaters against Craig but Craig definitely took the debate.

Technical: Low AQ.

A list of mini-reviews of Craig's debates can be found here!