RE: Dawkins' Debate Rejections
August 9, 2015 at 3:51 pm
(This post was last modified: August 9, 2015 at 4:07 pm by AFTT47.)
(August 9, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:(August 9, 2015 at 4:53 am)Alex K Wrote: ... This is exascerbated by the fact that he is really not a very skilled debater. ...
Yes, debating is a skill, so that who appears to "win" a debate is not necessarily the one who is most reasonable or is speaking the truth. Indeed, bold lying can be an effective strategy in a debate. I would never do a formal public debate with anyone about anything.
Anyone who is serious about a topic should research it rather than just listen to a debate about it. Who "wins" a debate is more about the debaters than about the subject under discussion.
Very good point. Formal debates are an artificial construct allowing people on the wrong side to employ tactics effective at "winning over" the ignorant listeners.
Formal debates are only useful when both participants participate in good faith to show that their point of view has the most merit from a scientific point of view - and when the audience is educated enough on the subject to see through the bullshit. Otherwise, it's a farce.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein