This is a different debate ( audio | 1:45.12s ) between Christian Max Andrews and Reasonable Doubt's Justin Schieber. It took place in early August 2013, so I think this is the most current debate I have reviewed on this site. Remember this glorious day, dear reader.
The Debate Begins around 3:40s in.
3.25 stars. Though this debate is lacking in terms of rhetorical interest, it's nonetheless packed with denser arguments given the great format. CHECK
JJ Lowder's reviews 1, 2, 3 & 4.
Counter Apologist review
Besides how recent the debate was, there were a few other reasons why I am reviewing this debate. One is that it isn't between two well known debaters, though I think both guys have done debates and are active on the interbuttz in this topic, especially Schieber.
Another reason that is more interesting is that this isn't a public debate. Instead, both guys recorded and transcribed their openings and responses. The first week they would make their openings available and they would have one week to make a response and some allotted time after that to make another response. It was more akin to the Infidels.org written debates only this time, they also recorded their arguments. The recording that I am linking to is just one response after another, there is a brief opening introducing Andrews.
This structure is fantastic and I wouldn't mind participating in a debate like this in the future, when I have more time and feel more comfortable with my grasp of all the different arguments. This format also makes the responses way more detailed and packed as the opponents had more time to prepare and rehearse their responses.
But does this work out for an interesting debate? Kinda. I felt that both sides presented rather convoluted arguments that at times seemed like they could have probably been streamlined. Some of the stuff seemed super technical or again, like it was presented in an overly technical just because they had the time to be so rigorous. This is why I am giving the debate a positive review because the arguments were definitely catered for the format I suppose. I highly suggest you read Jeff Lowder's reviews of the debate, he likes reviewing them like a forensic judge and meticulously summarizes the debate as well.
Hmph. I thought I would have more to say about the debate itself but I guess I don't, for now. Sorry folks, maybe I should just solely outsource my review to Lowder...I think the few criticisms I mentioned do make sense, at least.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Miller v Nelson Intelligent Design BEST
This debate ( audio | 1h20m35s ) took place in 2005 between Ken Miller and Paul Nelson and focused on Intelligent Design and education.
4.25 stars. BEST
PhilVaz 3/5
This debate took place during the height of the Dover Trial, a trial that contested whether or not ID can be taught in the classroom. Ken Miller is my favorite ID opponent and he was an expert witness at the trial, amongst many other prominent figures on both sides of the issue. IIRC, Nelson was also a witness...I think it says so in the debate.
Nelson comes off as amiable but doesn't present any interesting or new arguments. Probably the most forceful ID proponent is Stephen Meyer, IMO. I think even ID proponents would agree that Nelson doesn't bring the strongest arguments to the table and he is pretty evasive as well as wishy-washy.
Miller, on the other hand, does a great job presenting the debate. I don't think there is video of this, but if there is I would suggest ya'll check it out because Miller is usually pretty animated and integrates ppt into is presentations.
The Dover Trial brought out a lot of embarrassing things for ID proponents. It was ruled over by a conservative judge, it was documented quite extensively in the media which meant that items like the wedge document were mentioned to a wider audience, the main textbook recommended by the ID community was picked apart pretty thoroughly and there are public court transcripts riddled with silly quotes made by some of the greats of ID, like Michael Behe. In fact, Miller mentions one of Behe's more damning quotes which features him agreeing that under the criteria Behe uses to define ID as science, we would also have to define astrology as science.
So this is a pretty one-sided debate but a really nice quick listen to learn about how ID proponents are trying to get pretty much Creationism, into the classroom.
There is more to discuss but I might just leave the review here. I also might come back and add some more details but meh.
Technical: Good AQ
4.25 stars. BEST
PhilVaz 3/5
This debate took place during the height of the Dover Trial, a trial that contested whether or not ID can be taught in the classroom. Ken Miller is my favorite ID opponent and he was an expert witness at the trial, amongst many other prominent figures on both sides of the issue. IIRC, Nelson was also a witness...I think it says so in the debate.
Nelson comes off as amiable but doesn't present any interesting or new arguments. Probably the most forceful ID proponent is Stephen Meyer, IMO. I think even ID proponents would agree that Nelson doesn't bring the strongest arguments to the table and he is pretty evasive as well as wishy-washy.
Miller, on the other hand, does a great job presenting the debate. I don't think there is video of this, but if there is I would suggest ya'll check it out because Miller is usually pretty animated and integrates ppt into is presentations.
The Dover Trial brought out a lot of embarrassing things for ID proponents. It was ruled over by a conservative judge, it was documented quite extensively in the media which meant that items like the wedge document were mentioned to a wider audience, the main textbook recommended by the ID community was picked apart pretty thoroughly and there are public court transcripts riddled with silly quotes made by some of the greats of ID, like Michael Behe. In fact, Miller mentions one of Behe's more damning quotes which features him agreeing that under the criteria Behe uses to define ID as science, we would also have to define astrology as science.
So this is a pretty one-sided debate but a really nice quick listen to learn about how ID proponents are trying to get pretty much Creationism, into the classroom.
There is more to discuss but I might just leave the review here. I also might come back and add some more details but meh.
Technical: Good AQ
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Avalos v Weikart Darwin and Hitler BEST CHECK
This debate ( audio | 35m41s ) took place on the radio in 2008 and it concerned the link between Darwin and Hitler. It pitted Hector Avalos versus Historian Richard Weikart.
DB: 2m28s
4.75 stars. BEST CHECK
PhilVaz 3/5
APF review: 3.5/5
This is a short debate that took place on the radio in 2008. Though it's the radio, it was set up as a formal debate between Avalos and Weikart. In 2008, the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in the Classroom came out. I actually saw it in the movie theaters and it was pretty bad. Besides saying that science is purposely censoring ID, the movie also makes connections between Darwinism and Hitler. This is nothing new, but one of the more resent academics to exploit this misconception is Richard Weikart, who wrote From Darwin to Hitler, a book used in the movie.
Hector Avalos asked to debate Weikart about this and so here we are. Weikart's arguments are still pretty weak and unconvincing. He certainly has a knowledge of German thought and history around the time contemporary with Hitler and the height of eugenics, but his complete ignorance of the more obvious influences on the racial ideology and propaganda promoted in Nazi Germany is just too glaring and Avalos does a great job of pointing this out.
If you listened to the later debate that these two had on Unbelievable in 2011 (that I review here) you're gonna hear more of the same stuff. I actually think Weikart does a little better in that one, though not by much.
Weikart comes off as a little too dismissive too when he does briefly address Avalos' arguments: at one point he argues that Martin Luther's call for the murder of Jews was only specific to Jewish rabbis which thereby renders it nothing like Hitler's policies is kinda laughable. Avalos also does a great job of showing how tactically stupid it would be to use Darwinism as the main force of indoctrinating a nation to hate different ethnic groups when religion has such a stronger hold on a given population and is so much more accessible. I mean, why argue from a scientific theory little understood by a general population than from a religious doctrine that is so important to the lives of the members of that population? The fact that Kristallnacht happened on Luther's birthday, Luther was both a German and religious hero AND Hitler lists him as one of his heroes doesn't really help Weikart's case, either.
Again, the only issue with Avalos' side that I have is his style. His responses are effective and well argued, but he has a tendency to present his speeches in a way that make it seem like he isn't really addressing his opponent's arguments. I can sympathize with someone who was persuaded by Craig in his debate with Avalos and with Weikart in this debate, when they stated that Avalos failed to address their arguments. Though Avalos does a little better in this debate and his own arguments were just too damning.
Technical: Great AQ because it's radio.
DB: 2m28s
4.75 stars. BEST CHECK
PhilVaz 3/5
APF review: 3.5/5
This is a short debate that took place on the radio in 2008. Though it's the radio, it was set up as a formal debate between Avalos and Weikart. In 2008, the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in the Classroom came out. I actually saw it in the movie theaters and it was pretty bad. Besides saying that science is purposely censoring ID, the movie also makes connections between Darwinism and Hitler. This is nothing new, but one of the more resent academics to exploit this misconception is Richard Weikart, who wrote From Darwin to Hitler, a book used in the movie.
Hector Avalos asked to debate Weikart about this and so here we are. Weikart's arguments are still pretty weak and unconvincing. He certainly has a knowledge of German thought and history around the time contemporary with Hitler and the height of eugenics, but his complete ignorance of the more obvious influences on the racial ideology and propaganda promoted in Nazi Germany is just too glaring and Avalos does a great job of pointing this out.
If you listened to the later debate that these two had on Unbelievable in 2011 (that I review here) you're gonna hear more of the same stuff. I actually think Weikart does a little better in that one, though not by much.
Weikart comes off as a little too dismissive too when he does briefly address Avalos' arguments: at one point he argues that Martin Luther's call for the murder of Jews was only specific to Jewish rabbis which thereby renders it nothing like Hitler's policies is kinda laughable. Avalos also does a great job of showing how tactically stupid it would be to use Darwinism as the main force of indoctrinating a nation to hate different ethnic groups when religion has such a stronger hold on a given population and is so much more accessible. I mean, why argue from a scientific theory little understood by a general population than from a religious doctrine that is so important to the lives of the members of that population? The fact that Kristallnacht happened on Luther's birthday, Luther was both a German and religious hero AND Hitler lists him as one of his heroes doesn't really help Weikart's case, either.
Again, the only issue with Avalos' side that I have is his style. His responses are effective and well argued, but he has a tendency to present his speeches in a way that make it seem like he isn't really addressing his opponent's arguments. I can sympathize with someone who was persuaded by Craig in his debate with Avalos and with Weikart in this debate, when they stated that Avalos failed to address their arguments. Though Avalos does a little better in this debate and his own arguments were just too damning.
Technical: Great AQ because it's radio.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Carrier v Licona Resurrection BEST TOP TEN
This debate ( audio | video | 2h30m25s ) took place in 2004 between Apologist Mike Licona and Carrier at UCLA (go Bruins!) and was on the Resurrection.
DB: 5m09s
4.5 stars. BEST
PhilVaz 5/5
APF review: 4/5
This is definitely my favorite resurrection debate. Both Carrier and Licona do a great job and it is long, cordial and probably the most informative debate I have heard in general.
Both Licona and Carrier did something interesting that I have only heard of in one other debate: they decided to exchange their opening speeches with each other beforehand in order to make for a more srs rebuttal period. This was an awesome idea and it enabled both speakers to give some really impressive presentations.
This is the first debate I have heard of Licona's and I think it is one of his bests. His later debates focus on arguments not based on the gospels and sometimes include a discussion of contemporary miracles. Because Licona and Habermas have collaborated on a lot of stuff they both use a rather weak argument that I think people like WL Craig are wise in not bothering with. Basically, they both discuss modern day miracles and near-death experiences and of course I think the evidence for these things are very unconvincing, but I think that most religious people who do accept the resurrection feel the same way. So I think that Habermas and Licona should probably stop discussing it but since this is an earlier debate Licona barely (if at all) mentions it and sticks to a very historical defense.
Carrier does a great job here, he also sticks to fairly technical and specific arguments. At one point to demonstrate the fact that ancient Jews might not have thought there was an empty tomb, Carrier mentions writings that discussed a weird trial. This trial required the testimony* of Jesus or Jesus to be involved in some way through some weird ritual that used magic. Carrier argues that in order to carry out the ritual, the court needed the skull of Jesus which would mean that there is evidence that at least some number of ancient Jews didn't think that Jesus' tomb was empty nor did they have an issue with his resurrection.
I have never heard this before and I don't think I hear it ever again in any other debate. For all I know Richard Carrier just used a fake/false/wrong argument but it certainly is unique and Licona's response was unimpressive at most.
I dunno why I latched on to this example so much. I think it's a good example of how detailed this debate got, at least. But regardless, both Carrier and Licona do a great job and Licona is definitely one of my favorite defenders of the resurrection.
This one is a must listen, the Q&A and back and forth at the end is great and Prof Bartchy (who I never took as a professor but have heard in a debate and enjoyed) was a great moderator.
CHECK IT OUT!
Technical: Kind of low volume in terms of AQ, dunno about the VQ but it was a Veritas event and they're usually pretty good.
*I'm gonna relisten to this debate in the near future so I will hopefully update this review with more specific references to the arguments.
DB: 5m09s
4.5 stars. BEST
PhilVaz 5/5
APF review: 4/5
This is definitely my favorite resurrection debate. Both Carrier and Licona do a great job and it is long, cordial and probably the most informative debate I have heard in general.
Both Licona and Carrier did something interesting that I have only heard of in one other debate: they decided to exchange their opening speeches with each other beforehand in order to make for a more srs rebuttal period. This was an awesome idea and it enabled both speakers to give some really impressive presentations.
This is the first debate I have heard of Licona's and I think it is one of his bests. His later debates focus on arguments not based on the gospels and sometimes include a discussion of contemporary miracles. Because Licona and Habermas have collaborated on a lot of stuff they both use a rather weak argument that I think people like WL Craig are wise in not bothering with. Basically, they both discuss modern day miracles and near-death experiences and of course I think the evidence for these things are very unconvincing, but I think that most religious people who do accept the resurrection feel the same way. So I think that Habermas and Licona should probably stop discussing it but since this is an earlier debate Licona barely (if at all) mentions it and sticks to a very historical defense.
Carrier does a great job here, he also sticks to fairly technical and specific arguments. At one point to demonstrate the fact that ancient Jews might not have thought there was an empty tomb, Carrier mentions writings that discussed a weird trial. This trial required the testimony* of Jesus or Jesus to be involved in some way through some weird ritual that used magic. Carrier argues that in order to carry out the ritual, the court needed the skull of Jesus which would mean that there is evidence that at least some number of ancient Jews didn't think that Jesus' tomb was empty nor did they have an issue with his resurrection.
I have never heard this before and I don't think I hear it ever again in any other debate. For all I know Richard Carrier just used a fake/false/wrong argument but it certainly is unique and Licona's response was unimpressive at most.
I dunno why I latched on to this example so much. I think it's a good example of how detailed this debate got, at least. But regardless, both Carrier and Licona do a great job and Licona is definitely one of my favorite defenders of the resurrection.
This one is a must listen, the Q&A and back and forth at the end is great and Prof Bartchy (who I never took as a professor but have heard in a debate and enjoyed) was a great moderator.
CHECK IT OUT!
Technical: Kind of low volume in terms of AQ, dunno about the VQ but it was a Veritas event and they're usually pretty good.
*I'm gonna relisten to this debate in the near future so I will hopefully update this review with more specific references to the arguments.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Ed Turner Epically Reviews the Great Hitch
Ed Turner runs a wonderful blog: http://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpress.com
When I decided to spend way too much time looking into all the religious debates I found myself scrolling through the comments on the old Common Sense Atheism site and agreeing the most with Ed's views on WL Craig debates. I later found out that Ed Turner has appeared a billion times on Unbelievable from 2008 to 2011, one show which I reviewed here particularly shows his ability to hold his own on religious topics against multiple opponents.
Well anyways, Ed Turner has just published three epic posts on his blog detailing 69 different debates featuring the late, great Hitch. This is my first purely outsource post because I concur with Ed on a lot of his statements (sans one thing: Hitch's debate with Al Sharpton is one of his best, hands down). So PLEASE go and check out the following great posts!
Mini-Reviews of a Million Hitch Debates:
The Great
The Good
The Not So Good
Here is a quick 'n dirty list of my favorite Hitch debates, off the top of my head:
Hitch v Sharpton
Hitch/Fry v the Catholic Church
Hitch v Boteach II
Some of the Hitch v D'Souza debates
Hitch v Prager
Hitch v Kushner/Gomes
When I decided to spend way too much time looking into all the religious debates I found myself scrolling through the comments on the old Common Sense Atheism site and agreeing the most with Ed's views on WL Craig debates. I later found out that Ed Turner has appeared a billion times on Unbelievable from 2008 to 2011, one show which I reviewed here particularly shows his ability to hold his own on religious topics against multiple opponents.
Well anyways, Ed Turner has just published three epic posts on his blog detailing 69 different debates featuring the late, great Hitch. This is my first purely outsource post because I concur with Ed on a lot of his statements (sans one thing: Hitch's debate with Al Sharpton is one of his best, hands down). So PLEASE go and check out the following great posts!
Mini-Reviews of a Million Hitch Debates:
The Great
The Good
The Not So Good
Here is a quick 'n dirty list of my favorite Hitch debates, off the top of my head:
Hitch v Sharpton
Hitch/Fry v the Catholic Church
Hitch v Boteach II
Some of the Hitch v D'Souza debates
Hitch v Prager
Hitch v Kushner/Gomes
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Kennedy v Nixon First Presidential Debate 1960
This debate ( video | 58m35s ) took place in 1960 between JFK and Richard Nixon. It was the first pres debate to be broadcast on TV, three more were done but I dunno if I'll review them.
Debate Review
The debate focused on domestic policy issues. Kennedy started out by comparing the current state of poverty, technology and science in the US with that of those Red Atheists to the East and noting how crappy our situation is. He even reaches out to the minorities. Nixon, being apart of the administration that Kennedy is criticizing is automatically on the defensive and starts to compare the progress made by the Eisenhower admin compared to the Truman admin. He concludes that Kennedy is just gonna rehash policies from the Truman admin, which obviously sucked compared to the Eisenhower admin.
Of course Nixon said all this in a pretty cordial way. He kept talking about how he agreed with Kennedy and how legit of a guy Kennedy was, regardless of being wrong. This is just too nice for what I'm used to! Especially for politics. Both guys said pretty much nothing in terms of content in both their opening speeches, but Kennedy came off as more forceful and passionate about the vague troubles he noted in his opening.
Then each guy got questions from some journalists. One would be asked a question and the other guy would respond to the answer given by his opponent. Kennedy gets asked the first question and responds pretty well. He also says some critical things of Nixon and when Nixon was asked to comment on it he simply says he has no comment. Again, I can't see the politicians of today passing up an opportunity to respond to an opponent or to just simply talk. Nixon dropped the ball on that one.
I'm surprised I lasted this long. Political debates are not that interesting to me because of how vague each guy sounds. I guess Kennedy came off better but Nixon didn't seem all that sweaty or sickly to me...to be fair I am a Hitch fan and he doesn't seem like he preps for too long before his debates...
Commentary
I decided to review the first debate because it is a famous example used to highlight important facts associated with politics, performance, public image and technology. All of those things (some more than others) are important aspects related to this blog. Mainly, the Kennedy-Nixon debates are known for dividing audiences of differing mediums as to whom won the first debate. Basically, the common musing is that those who listened to the debate, thought Nixon won. Those that watched the debate, thought that Kennedy won. The Wikipedia article on the debate has some objections to this musing, but the debate is still a pretty easy to explain example for how important the couple o' things I mentioned in the first sentence are towards swaying your audience to agree with your position.
I have decided to focus on audio/video debates for this blog. There is a wealth of written and transcribed debates out there that I suggest you all check out but because they don't meet all the features I enjoy in a debate I have decided not to include reviews of them. And I should further mention that I mostly listen to the audio of these debates. So basically, I would have thought that Nixon won...well, kinda.
Because of how this blog is the most important thing to me in my entire life, ever - I have decided to try and watch the debates as well, at least the popular ones or the ones that I have rated the highest. There are debates out there that are only available in audio or video. The latter is easy to fix, just don't watch it and listen but the former isn't so easy to trouble-shoot. Some of the favorite debates are audio only, I wonder if that would change if I watched the video of one of those debates. I always find it kind of funny to think of debates where it sounds like the guy is bombing terribly but for all I know, the audience is in tears because of how powerful his gesticulations are in demonstrating the soundness of his arguments...or something.
Whatevs.
Technical: The VQ is fine, black and white...but duh. Your left ear will LOVE the debate but your right ear will want JFK and Nixon to speak up...
Debate Review
The debate focused on domestic policy issues. Kennedy started out by comparing the current state of poverty, technology and science in the US with that of those Red Atheists to the East and noting how crappy our situation is. He even reaches out to the minorities. Nixon, being apart of the administration that Kennedy is criticizing is automatically on the defensive and starts to compare the progress made by the Eisenhower admin compared to the Truman admin. He concludes that Kennedy is just gonna rehash policies from the Truman admin, which obviously sucked compared to the Eisenhower admin.
Of course Nixon said all this in a pretty cordial way. He kept talking about how he agreed with Kennedy and how legit of a guy Kennedy was, regardless of being wrong. This is just too nice for what I'm used to! Especially for politics. Both guys said pretty much nothing in terms of content in both their opening speeches, but Kennedy came off as more forceful and passionate about the vague troubles he noted in his opening.
Then each guy got questions from some journalists. One would be asked a question and the other guy would respond to the answer given by his opponent. Kennedy gets asked the first question and responds pretty well. He also says some critical things of Nixon and when Nixon was asked to comment on it he simply says he has no comment. Again, I can't see the politicians of today passing up an opportunity to respond to an opponent or to just simply talk. Nixon dropped the ball on that one.
I'm surprised I lasted this long. Political debates are not that interesting to me because of how vague each guy sounds. I guess Kennedy came off better but Nixon didn't seem all that sweaty or sickly to me...to be fair I am a Hitch fan and he doesn't seem like he preps for too long before his debates...
Commentary
I decided to review the first debate because it is a famous example used to highlight important facts associated with politics, performance, public image and technology. All of those things (some more than others) are important aspects related to this blog. Mainly, the Kennedy-Nixon debates are known for dividing audiences of differing mediums as to whom won the first debate. Basically, the common musing is that those who listened to the debate, thought Nixon won. Those that watched the debate, thought that Kennedy won. The Wikipedia article on the debate has some objections to this musing, but the debate is still a pretty easy to explain example for how important the couple o' things I mentioned in the first sentence are towards swaying your audience to agree with your position.
I have decided to focus on audio/video debates for this blog. There is a wealth of written and transcribed debates out there that I suggest you all check out but because they don't meet all the features I enjoy in a debate I have decided not to include reviews of them. And I should further mention that I mostly listen to the audio of these debates. So basically, I would have thought that Nixon won...well, kinda.
Because of how this blog is the most important thing to me in my entire life, ever - I have decided to try and watch the debates as well, at least the popular ones or the ones that I have rated the highest. There are debates out there that are only available in audio or video. The latter is easy to fix, just don't watch it and listen but the former isn't so easy to trouble-shoot. Some of the favorite debates are audio only, I wonder if that would change if I watched the video of one of those debates. I always find it kind of funny to think of debates where it sounds like the guy is bombing terribly but for all I know, the audience is in tears because of how powerful his gesticulations are in demonstrating the soundness of his arguments...or something.
Whatevs.
Technical: The VQ is fine, black and white...but duh. Your left ear will LOVE the debate but your right ear will want JFK and Nixon to speak up...
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Debates Should Be Free!
This post is a rant similar to my debates I'll never know post. The only difference is that these debates are available, but for a price.
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong v Dinesh D'Souza
This is the debate that made me wanna make this post. These guys seem like two polar opposites, S-A is a thoughtful atheist philosopher who has managed to beat Craig in a debate whereas D'Souza is a neo-con talking head who's claimed that racism isn't an issue in America anymore and will say anything to win a debate (he once made fun of Barker for talking about how the book is supposed to have been inspired by god according to Christians by pointing out that everyone knows that the bible was written by men over hundreds of years...he said this as if it was supposed to be a point for him!)
The only reason I can see why this debate occurred is that they both were associated with Dartmouth at some point.
Never the less, what! How have I not heard of this debate? It took place in 2008 and no one else in the irreligious community interested in debates has mentioned this one. The reason for this, I have decided, is that you gotta buy the debate! You have to fork out 20$ to get it, and it is less than two hours. I decided to see all the awesome movies that I love that I can afford and buy with 20 bucks. Here they are:
Children of Men
Princess Mononoke
M
Cabin in the Woods
You get the idear.
James White v Robert Price
UPDATE: I bought this one, it was 4+ dollars. Dr. White: if you're gonna make people pay for your debates: make them all one file and less annoying to download, sir!
White v Bart Ehrman
White v Shabir Ally
White v Mike Licona
James White does this stuff for a living so I can ultimately understand why he does this. However, it is still pretty lame because White has debated a lot of folk on different issues. I do in fact, review one of his debates here, but I feel bad cause it was on YouTube and probably not approved of. I want people to access all the debates I review for themselves on this blog. I especially want them to do so without resulting to accessing them via illegal means or worse, pay for them.
Keith Parsons v Pastor Trigg
I've complained about this one before. Not only is it no longer in stock, but it would only be available in VHS form, so I would have to find a VHS player to watch it!
Hitch v WL Craig
This one is easier to get with investigoogling and I think it was even free on the internet at one point so you could still get it via the wayback machine, mayhaps? This one suffers from what the S-A v D'Souza debate suffers from, why is a debate with such a popular front man (Hitch) being sold instead of freely given? I know the generic reasons, but I like the reasons I have for them being free more than those generic reasons. Le sigh.
Misc Debates on The Infidel Guy
Notice the lack of a link to an example? Well that's because IG.com isn't alive anymore. So hundreds of media files filled with debates are lost to us! Reggie (the Infidel Guy) was nice enough to okay my hosting the episodes that I have on my own server but there are hundreds of debates on that site that I didn't download cause they cost money! Woe is me!
Anyways, sorry for the lack of substance in this post. I just wish I could listen to all these debates and that I could further link them to you, dear reader!
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong v Dinesh D'Souza
This is the debate that made me wanna make this post. These guys seem like two polar opposites, S-A is a thoughtful atheist philosopher who has managed to beat Craig in a debate whereas D'Souza is a neo-con talking head who's claimed that racism isn't an issue in America anymore and will say anything to win a debate (he once made fun of Barker for talking about how the book is supposed to have been inspired by god according to Christians by pointing out that everyone knows that the bible was written by men over hundreds of years...he said this as if it was supposed to be a point for him!)
The only reason I can see why this debate occurred is that they both were associated with Dartmouth at some point.
Never the less, what! How have I not heard of this debate? It took place in 2008 and no one else in the irreligious community interested in debates has mentioned this one. The reason for this, I have decided, is that you gotta buy the debate! You have to fork out 20$ to get it, and it is less than two hours. I decided to see all the awesome movies that I love that I can afford and buy with 20 bucks. Here they are:
Children of Men
Princess Mononoke
M
Cabin in the Woods
You get the idear.
James White v Robert Price
UPDATE: I bought this one, it was 4+ dollars. Dr. White: if you're gonna make people pay for your debates: make them all one file and less annoying to download, sir!
White v Bart Ehrman
White v Shabir Ally
White v Mike Licona
James White does this stuff for a living so I can ultimately understand why he does this. However, it is still pretty lame because White has debated a lot of folk on different issues. I do in fact, review one of his debates here, but I feel bad cause it was on YouTube and probably not approved of. I want people to access all the debates I review for themselves on this blog. I especially want them to do so without resulting to accessing them via illegal means or worse, pay for them.
Keith Parsons v Pastor Trigg
I've complained about this one before. Not only is it no longer in stock, but it would only be available in VHS form, so I would have to find a VHS player to watch it!
Hitch v WL Craig
This one is easier to get with investigoogling and I think it was even free on the internet at one point so you could still get it via the wayback machine, mayhaps? This one suffers from what the S-A v D'Souza debate suffers from, why is a debate with such a popular front man (Hitch) being sold instead of freely given? I know the generic reasons, but I like the reasons I have for them being free more than those generic reasons. Le sigh.
Misc Debates on The Infidel Guy
Notice the lack of a link to an example? Well that's because IG.com isn't alive anymore. So hundreds of media files filled with debates are lost to us! Reggie (the Infidel Guy) was nice enough to okay my hosting the episodes that I have on my own server but there are hundreds of debates on that site that I didn't download cause they cost money! Woe is me!
Anyways, sorry for the lack of substance in this post. I just wish I could listen to all these debates and that I could further link them to you, dear reader!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)