What are some of the best debates you have seen between nontheists and theists? Who are your favorite debaters? Also, are there any debates you would like to see?

Some of my favorite debates:
Peter Singer vs. Dinesh D'Souza - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA
Bart Ehrman vs. William Lane Craig - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac
Peter Singer vs. John Hare - http://static.veritas.org/media/files/v09mit03.mov

My favorite debaters
Peter Singer
Bart Ehrman

Debates I would like to see
Richard Dawkins vs. William Lane Craig
Richard Dawkins vs. Alvin Plantinga
Peter Singer vs. Alvin Plantinga

I'm sure most of you saw the Hitchens/Craig debate. I thought that one went terrible, Hitchens could have done a much better job. I don't think Hitchens was prepared for what Bill presented, and he made Hitchens look really sloppy. However, if you want to see William Lane Craig get put in his place then watch the Ehrman/Craig debate. I've heard a lot of Christians say Alvin Plantinga is hot stuff, so I'd like to see him debate Dawkins, because Plantiga debates on science and religion compatibility. But it is because I study the problem of evil a great deal that I know of Plantinga, and he seems to be one of the biggest defenders on that issue for the theists. For that reason I'd like to see Plantinga debate Singer because they are both pure philosophy and opposing sides, that debate would be a dream come true for me. I want to see Plantinga vs. Dawkins or Singer for a pure clash of intellect and I want to see William Lane Craig debate Dawkins so he can be put in his place again because I really don't like him. I think William Lane Craig is dishonest and really doesn't care about truth because he puts his own religious agenda ahead of the search for truth and you can see it in some of his debates or talks. I'd like to know some of the debates you all like the most. I have more that I really like but the ones I mentioned are my top favorites.

Favorite debaters:

Hitchens, Harris and Barker and I really starting to like PZ.

The best debate, and also, the most annoying one was that battle royale with Hitchens, Harris and Dennett Vs. D'Souza *stab*, Boteach *stab* and some guy named Taleb *no reason to kill him really, seemed like a nice enough person*

I loved the way Dennett and Hitchens have caught D'Souza lying again. He was talking about evolution again, I think, and they pointed it out to him on the podium too.

How Hitchens doesn't get bored and annoyed debating D'Souza and Boteach over and over again, with them bringing the same, lame, age-old argument (you know, Hitler and Stalin were "atheists") is beyond me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hnqo4_X7PE

MattHunX wrote:Favorite debaters:

Hitchens, Harris and Barker and I really starting to like PZ.

The best debate, and also, the most annoying one was that battle royale with Hitchens, Harris and Dennett Vs. D'Souza *stab*, Boteach *stab* and some guy named Taleb *no reason to kill him really, seemed like a nice enough person*

I loved the way Dennett and Hitchens have caught D'Souza lying again. He was talking about evolution again, I think, and they pointed it out to him on the podium too.

How Hitchens doesn't get bored and annoyed debating D'Souza and Boteach over and over again, with them bringing the same, lame, age-old argument (you know, Hitler and Stalin were "atheists") is beyond me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hnqo4_X7PE

I find that philosophers are generally much better debaters (Dennett may be an exception - his debate with Plantinga was unfortunate, because he refrained from responding to Al's arguments directly). Some of the best atheist debaters, I think, are Shelly Kagan, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Theodore Drange, Keith Parsons, Paul Draper, and Richard Gale.

I found that Peter Singer was a lot more successful against D'Souza than Hitchens. In their first debate, D'Souza and Hitchens seem more or less similar to me, both being characterized largely by appeal to anecdotal evidence, various historical events for which their opponent's position is to blame, rhetorical skills, and little emphasis on arguments which seek to show their opponent's view to be false - when they debate I have a hard time assessing whether either one of them has done a better job of showing their view to be true; they seem to be more interested in mud-slinging (which, admittedly, is entertaining). Singer cuts through all of that with arguments (as he should). A more interesting debate was Singer vs John Hare - both are universal prescriptivists, but one is an atheist, one a theist.

Looking forward to watching that debate you posted, though I haven't heard of Boteach or Taleb.

Debates I would like to see
Richard Dawkins vs. William Lane Craig
Richard Dawkins vs. Alvin Plantinga
Peter Singer vs. Alvin Plantinga

I would absolutely love to see Dawkins debate either Craig or Plantinga. I think Michael Martin would be a better match for either one, but perhaps not as entertaining. Singer vs Plantinga is an interesting pairing though, I wonder what they would have to say to one another, given that one is an ethicist and the other an epistemologist (sure, that's a word); I wonder if Singer is well-versed enough in philosophy of mind to respond well to Al's EAAN.

This I thought was a very good debate on TAG with Matt Slick and Matt Dillahunty. It took place on the Atheist Experience. Matt Dillahunty (Show host) seems to be an intelligent man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU ... re=related

wonka08 wrote:This I thought was a very good debate on TAG with Matt Slick and Matt Dillahunty. It took place on the Atheist Experience. Matt Dillahunty (Show host) seems to be an intelligent man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU ... re=related

I still haven't made up my mind about TAG. It's fascinating to be sure, but I'm not sure where I stand. Michael Martin had some excellent debates on this argument, made up his own atheist version (nowhere near as intuitive though as the theistic formulation); if I remember right, he argued with Van Till, Frame and Bahnsen on different occasions.

Here's a debate between Bahnsen and Smith. Greg Bahnsen was a student of Van Til, who first discovered this argument; the difference is he's a real philosopher (Van Til was some kind of Calvinist mystic ). http://www.bringyou.to/BahnsenSmithDebate.mp3

But of course, the best presuppositionalist was Gordon Clark.

The Doctor wrote:What are some of the best debates you have seen between nontheists and theists? Who are your favorite debaters? Also, are there any debates you would like to see?

Some of my favorite debates:
Peter Singer vs. Dinesh D'Souza - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA
Bart Ehrman vs. William Lane Craig - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac
Peter Singer vs. John Hare - http://static.veritas.org/media/files/v09mit03.mov

My favorite debaters
Peter Singer
Bart Ehrman

Debates I would like to see
Richard Dawkins vs. William Lane Craig
Richard Dawkins vs. Alvin Plantinga
Peter Singer vs. Alvin Plantinga

I'm sure most of you saw the Hitchens/Craig debate. I thought that one went terrible, Hitchens could have done a much better job. I don't think Hitchens was prepared for what Bill presented, and he made Hitchens look really sloppy. However, if you want to see William Lane Craig get put in his place then watch the Ehrman/Craig debate. I've heard a lot of Christians say Alvin Plantinga is hot stuff, so I'd like to see him debate Dawkins, because Plantiga debates on science and religion compatibility. But it is because I study the problem of evil a great deal that I know of Plantinga, and he seems to be one of the biggest defenders on that issue for the theists. For that reason I'd like to see Plantinga debate Singer because they are both pure philosophy and opposing sides, that debate would be a dream come true for me. I want to see Plantinga vs. Dawkins or Singer for a pure clash of intellect and I want to see William Lane Craig debate Dawkins so he can be put in his place again because I really don't like him. I think William Lane Craig is dishonest and really doesn't care about truth because he puts his own religious agenda ahead of the search for truth and you can see it in some of his debates or talks. I'd like to know some of the debates you all like the most. I have more that I really like but the ones I mentioned are my top favorites.

Craig is probably the best debater I have ever seen and he is a professional philosopher. Dawkins put Craig in his place? That's doubtful (I also don't think Ehrman 'put Craig in his place'). But if the debate is set, then hopefully Dawkins would bring better arguments than those found within his God Delusion.

As for Plantinga, he is on a whole different level. Plantinga is a very well respected intellectual heavyweight in areas of epistemology, metaphysics, logic and the philosophy of religion. His influence is up there with Quine, I think. Other philosophers put him up with Leibniz.

I had a few email conversations with Plantinga. He's a nice fellow.

I just might have to watch Ehrman vs. Craig, but...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuYoU_IFQz8[/youtube]

In regards to Virlandi's video,

Craig didn't present Ehrman with a mathematical proof that God exists. He presented Ehrman with Bayes theorem and Swinburne's use of it within the philosophical debate regarding miracles. The argument functions, if true, as an indirect inductive argument for God's existence.

The narrator says that 'things got so bad' for Craig that he had to preach. That's silly. At the end of most of Craig's debates, he talks about the inner witness of Christ. The object here is simple: if the evidence does not sway you one way or another, there is another form of private evidence which is self-verifying and that's the presence of God, the Holy spirit, within you. It's not something he does when he's in trouble. One of his goals, among others, is to keep and gain Christians. So, he appeals to those of whom may not have been entirely convinced by the evidence given within the debate.

I have no comment on the evolutionary part. I have no education in it.


Just a note on the last part. Craig only said that the knowledge of God is evident to all people from nature. He didn't say it was "clearly" or "obviously" evident as the narrator conveys. I'm also not sure why he thinks Craig is a hypocrite.

Mick wrote:In regards to Virlandi's video,

Craig didn't present Ehrman with a mathematical proof that God exists. He presented Ehrman with Bayes theorem and Swinburne's use of it within the philosophical debate regarding miracles. The argument functions, if true, as an indirect inductive argument for God's existence.

The narrator says that 'things got so bad' for Craig that he had to preach. That's silly. At the end of most of Craig's debates, he talks about the inner witness of Christ. The object here is simple: if the evidence does not sway you one way or another, there is another form of private evidence which is self-verifying and that's the presence of God, the Holy spirit, within you. It's not something he does when he's in trouble. One of his goals, among others, is to keep and gain Christians. So, he appeals to those of whom may not have been entirely convinced by the evidence given within the debate.

I have no comment on the evolutionary part. I have no education in it.


Just a note on the last part. Craig only said that the knowledge of God is evident to all people from nature. He didn't say it was "clearly" or "obviously" evident as the narrator conveys. I'm also not sure why he thinks Craig is a hypocrite.

I found that Ehrman did terribly in his debate against Craig, that video is way off. Ehrman's response to Craig's argument was "historians aren't allowed to make theological conclusions," which is irrelevant, because the debate wasn't about the historical methodological restrictions - one might as well respond to Craig's cosmological argument by saying, "scientists aren't allowed to make theological conclusions, therefore your argument is unsound." In addition he refrained from offering any naturalistic alternative hypothesis to resurrection until his closing remarks, so that Craig didn't have a chance to refute it. Ehrman's main argument was just a restatement of Hume's argument against miracles (from the Enquiry), and as Craig pointed out, it's fallacious.

To be fair, I think Ehrman did a better job of answering Craig's Resurrection argument than any of the others he's debated on that topic. But, I that may be just a reflection on the strength of the argument. The only debate I can think of in which I thought Craig's opponent gave the better performance was with Shelly Kagan on the moral argument - but that was more of a "discussion" than a debate. I found that Kagan was also the most gracious of all the people he's debated - it's definitely worth watching (they've got it posted on youtube).

... I'm also not sure why he thinks Craig is a hypocrite.

that puzzled me too.
Where is the hypocrisy?

I would have loved to see Dawkins debate Phillip Johnson, but the opportunity has probably passed. Failing that, a debate between Dawkins and Plantinga, but I don't see that happening either. Dawkins is no philosopher, and I think at some level he knows it. If he won't encounter Craig, the chances of his venturing into the ring with Plantinga must be slim to vanishing.

Here are a few I liked:

1. Craig vs. Arif Ahmed (mp3, RatSkep thread on the debate)
2. Craig vs. Raymond Bradley (mp3, debate transcript)
3. Craig vs. Shelly Kagan (mp3, video)

Those three guys did really well against Craig.
.

murshid wrote:Here are a few I liked:

1. Craig vs. Arif Ahmed (mp3, RatSkep thread on the debate)
2. Craig vs. Raymond Bradley (mp3, debate transcript)
3. Craig vs. Shelly Kagan (mp3, video)

Those three guys did really well against Craig.
.

I agree Murshid. Shelly Kagan and Arif Ahmed gave the best performances against Craig in the many such debates to which I have listened. The other one that I thought matched Craig was John Shook. I haven't listened to the Bradley debate but, given your recommendation, I will seek it out.

Craig is a brilliant debater because:
- he manages his time exquisitely,
- he uses tactics that tilt the battlefield in his favour, but which few opponents are perceptive enough to spot or to challenge him on:
- he knows most of his subject extremely well, and the bits he knows less well, such as mathematics or cosmology, he usually manages to get by on by appealing to authority
- he has had far more practice at debating this sort of stuff than anybody else on Earth
[Note that "he has good arguments" does not figure in this list. That is very rarely the determinant of who 'wins' a debate, which is just as well for Craig because his arguments are mostly heavily flawed]

So to debate Craig and get any result other than total annihilation could be seen as a good result.

Shook and Ahmed either matched Craig or came close, but I would go so far as to say that Kagan "won" his debate with Craig, which is high praise indeed.

People must have a different idea of what constitutes a "good debate" than I do. To me, in a good debate the issue is one over which there is genuine intellectual and rational reason for disagreement, and both sides endeavour to present their arguments fairly, accurately and honestly. As well as with actual understanding of the evidence upon which they base those arguments. Craig, Boteach, and D'Souza do nothing remotely like that.

andrewk wrote:[Craig] uses tactics that tilt the battlefield in his favour, but which few opponents are perceptive enough to spot or to challenge him on

Which is odd, 'cause his trick is both obvious and fragile. Craig rigs the deck by crafting propositions that create his desired end. Ie, "If the world exists, it must ride through space atop a giant turtle; the world exists; ergo, giant turtle (and probably elephants)". All you need to do to pull the rug from under him is throw a spot on the stage magic and challenge Craig to back up his assertions. Takes under a minute. How's that for time management?

Until this happens, the ridiculous rep of "Craig, master debater" will continue to do the rounds.

You're right Byron. The tactic should be easily countered. However I think the mistake most of Craig's opponents make is not preparing for the debate by studying Craig's arguments and tactics. I suspect that people like Christopher Hitchens (Peace be upon his name) assume that, just because they are better educated and cleverer than Craig, they will easily be able to handle him. They are very wrong. Debating is a learned skill, and knowing and devising strategies for countering the tactics of your opponent is a core element of that skill, just as it is in football or cricket.

I think it's not as bad as it seems though. I don't think Craig is likely to convert many atheists, because they are often people who value rational analysis and like to think things through - so even if he sounded good in a debate, once they sit down and think over his arguments they'll start to see the flaws in them that maybe weren't so obvious in the heat of the moment.

On the other hand, much of the audience in these debates is often Christian. If someone like Hitchens, despite getting thrashed in a debate, can plant just a seed of doubt in a few closed Christian minds by one or two points he made, then that might lead to reflection, questioning, and maybe even eventual liberation. After all, many of these are people who never usually hear the views of anybody except other Christians on matters like these.

andrewk wrote:The other one that I thought matched Craig was John Shook.

Yes, Shook did really well too. Forgot to mention him.

andrewk wrote:Shook and Ahmed either matched Craig or came close, but I would go so far as to say that Kagan "won" his debate with Craig, which is high praise indeed.

I think Shook and Ahmed each managed at least a draw (if not a win).

Byron wrote:Craig rigs the deck by crafting propositions that create his desired end. Ie, "If the world exists, it must ride through space atop a giant turtle; the world exists; ergo, giant turtle (and probably elephants)". All you need to do to pull the rug from under him is throw a spot on the stage magic and challenge Craig to back up his assertions. Takes under a minute. How's that for time management?

Well, if you ask him to back up his assertion about, say, the universe beginning to exist, he would just quote-mine some cosmologists and appeal to authority. At the time of a debate, it's not possible to check the quotes or the authority he dishonestly uses to support his claims. But such appeals to authority do convince the gullible, which is why he is often considered as the winner.
.

andrewk wrote:However I think the mistake most of Craig's opponents make is not preparing for the debate by studying Craig's arguments and tactics.

I suspect you're onto it, here. Not just a failure to research Craig's modus, but a failure to be versed in the tricks of the trade. The moment an opponent lets Craig set the terms, they've already lost. Trying to rebut his points is futile when the premise is rigged in his favor. But it's easy to fall for unless you're wise to the tactic.

I hope he does plant some seeds, but better a damn great bush is sprung. That only happens when Craig's defeated on his own terms.

murshid wrote:Well, if you ask [Craig] to back up his assertion about, say, the universe beginning to exist, he would just quote-mine some cosmologists and appeal to authority. At the time of a debate, it's not possible to check the quotes or the authority he dishonestly uses to support his claims. But such appeals to authority do convince the gullible, which is why he is often considered as the winner.

Two can play the authority fallacy. People go into these debates prepped, so if you want to go that route, have a stack of quotes from cosmologists who counter Craig.

Better yet, call him out, explain the authority fallacy (lots of people don't know it is a fallacy, or why it is), and put the smug snake on the spot as to why a such a suave philosopher is running with this Middle School crap.

Byron wrote:

murshid wrote:Well, if you ask [Craig] to back up his assertion about, say, the universe beginning to exist, he would just quote-mine some cosmologists and appeal to authority. At the time of a debate, it's not possible to check the quotes or the authority he dishonestly uses to support his claims. But such appeals to authority do convince the gullible, which is why he is often considered as the winner.

Two can play the authority fallacy. People go into these debates prepped, so if you want to go that route, have a stack of quotes from cosmologists who counter Craig.

Better yet, call him out, explain the authority fallacy (lots of people don't know it is a fallacy, or why it is), and put the smug snake on the spot as to why a such a suave philosopher is running with this Middle School crap.

I think both are good ideas if used in tandem. I wonder why more people don't call him out on the fallacy. Arif Ahmed came close and mentioned that he himself is not going to appeal to authority; but that didn't stop Craig from doing it.
.

I liked the Intelligence Squared debate, mostly because we won.

murshid wrote:

Byron wrote:

murshid wrote:Well, if you ask [Craig] to back up his assertion about, say, the universe beginning to exist, he would just quote-mine some cosmologists and appeal to authority. At the time of a debate, it's not possible to check the quotes or the authority he dishonestly uses to support his claims. But such appeals to authority do convince the gullible, which is why he is often considered as the winner.

Two can play the authority fallacy. People go into these debates prepped, so if you want to go that route, have a stack of quotes from cosmologists who counter Craig.

Better yet, call him out, explain the authority fallacy (lots of people don't know it is a fallacy, or why it is), and put the smug snake on the spot as to why a such a suave philosopher is running with this Middle School crap.

I think both are good ideas if used in tandem. I wonder why more people don't call him out on the fallacy. Arif Ahmed came close and mentioned that he himself is not going to appeal to authority; but that didn't stop Craig from doing it.

Lawrence Krauss called him out on it. I'll repeat that: LAWRENCE FUCKING KRAUSS told Craig that he was misunderstanding and misrepresenting the cosmological evidence he was using to support his argument. So did Craig say to himself, "Oh, one of the world's leading physicists is telling me I am misunderstanding the evidence from his own field of expertise. I guess I should probably consider that he might be right, and reassess my arguments."?

As if. That would mean stepping of the Apologetic Nonsense Gravy Train.