WLC and Sean Carroll debate

[Freedom of thought]

Has everyone seen the debate? It's been out for a few months now.

Here

I've recently re-watched it to appreciate how much Sean completely obliterated WLC. WLC is a notoriously vigorous and highly skilled debater, I am really surprised how the debate went given Carroll is not even a debater. But I guess if you have the facts on your side, it's easy to win. Not to mention he was on his home turf (cosmology). Sean responded to almost all of WLC's points, and wasn't oblivious most of the time nor avoided engaging with the arguments with the usual atheist debaters who go up against WLC, like with the Hitchens debate (that debate was atrocious for Hitchens).

WLC was definitely not on the science either, and has been misusing the BGV theorem for years. Sean set that straight by pointing out it doesn't prove a beginning, but I doubt WLC will make changes to his arguments or the apparent evidence for his arguments (as usual). It was also hilarious watching him desperately grasp at straws towards the end with the model Carroll proposes, by saying "you see here in the middle of the diagram, it shows a beginning there!". Carroll dismisses this immediately for the BS that was, and I almost felt sorry for him.

[ThePinsir]

I didn't think the Hitchens-WLC debate went badly for Hitchens at all!

But maybe I wasn't totally unbiased when watching

[MindForgedManacle]

Carroll did great in the debate. He's probably one of the few I would say actually beat Craig in a debate, and in both the science and the philosophy. Props.

[Freedom of thought]

I didn't think the Hitchens-WLC debate went badly for Hitchens at all!

But maybe I wasn't totally unbiased when watching

Here are a few things Hitchens did wrong in the debate:

1) There was little engagement with Craig's actual arguments. Sure, to the kalam he said "There's something, but what about the nothing coming our way?", but Craig had a good response to that "The temporal duration has nothing to do with if something was designed or not". Which is correct, because on christianity the universe isn't meant to last forever. Hitchens had no reply to that, he just repeated himself with his previous argument basically. Hitchens should have responded "Sure, but god didn't have to do it in such a cruel and drawn out way (through evolution for example)", but he didn't. If Hitchens played more on the natural suffering, he could have went far better.
2) He spent far too much time setting the burden of proof straight. Sure, Craig was being a bit of a dick trying to shift the burden, but in a debate, its expect for the atheist and the theist to refute/present arguments against the others position. That's what the debate it for, so I kind of have to take Craig's side there, but Craig was pushing it a little to far, atheists don't have to prove 'god doesn't exist' to justify atheism.
3) There was very little engagement and replying to Craig's statements/counter arguments.
4) Hitchens presented very few arguments, the only real arguments he presented was the problem of evil/natural suffering, which Craig had a good response to (which was not even attempted to be refuted by Hitchens), he could have presented more than that.

Let's face it, Craig is a scholar who is constantly engaged in the philosophical literature, and highly trained debater who was debating since his freshman year. Sure, most of his arguments are not sound, but since he his on top of the literature/arguments for and against his position, he has a cunning response for almost every single possible argument, which most debaters just aren't equipped to deal with. The only people who are really equipped to take on Craig in a debate involving philosophy are people who are on top of the literature. Besides, Hitchens was probably a little drunk off some Jack Daniels during that debate. Hitchens was a very clever man, but even the most clever men can lose debates every so often, especially when they've had too much to drink. Even judging before the debate, its obvious Hitchens was out of his league (in terms of debating). Everyone already knew he would have gotten flogged.