(September 13, 2009 at 8:32 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I think Hitchens is a joy to watch when he debates, he's very entertaining. And good at what he does.

I only stopped watching him (untill recently) after I discovered he was 'pro-life'. That seemed really suprising.

EvF

So what that he is pro-life? Why would you stop watching and listening for that?

[quote='Retorth' pid='32943' dateline='1252834790']
debating on a forum and face-to-face.

Yes, there most definitely is. Especially if the person you are debating is highly skilled in sophistry and already has an apologetic argument and sophist tactic ready to counter anything you might come up with. Debating someone like this face to face would be a disaster. If you are not familiar with sophist tactics, you would be overwhelmed and not have a chance of accomplishing anything. This is a classic mistake atheists make in engaging religious nuts.
1. They assume they will get an honest discussion. The fact is they will never get an honest discussion. They will get an unscrupulous discussion filled with lies, half truths, misrepresentations, spin, sophist manipulations, etc.
2. They assume the Christian is unprepared. They would be very wrong. Christians study atheist arguments well in advance and study the sophist tactics and apologetic flim flam that can be used to defeat them.

This is why I like to debate Christians in writing.
1. They have to put everything in writing which makes it harder for them to deny what they said and accuse you of saying things you didn't say.
2. You have the time to dissect their argument, find the sophistry and expose it. Sophists are vulnerable here. They expect you to be in a hurry to counter them and therefore think you will not take this critical step. And they are often right. You most likely will validate their sophistry by giving them a free pass for using it or else argue against the straw man they have erected for you. But, if instead of falling for their trap, you point out their unscrupulous manipulations. They lose credibility and the audience recognizes this.

So, we should see that debating in writing is far more effective in debate. We must be prepared in advance by being just as familiar with the tactics of sophistry as we are with the apologetic arguments that will be used against us. And we must avoid using sophistry ourselves because if we do we will not be able to make a credible argument against our opponent for using it. And you can be absolutely certain that when you expose them for using sophistry they will accuse you of being equally guilty even if you are totally innocent. You best be innocent.

We have the opportunity to see how this works with the debate now taking place between Arcanus and Saerules. Both have made opening statements and Arcanus has wasted no time in going on the offensive. In his opening salvo he employs a sophist tactic known as the false analogy. He does an extraordinary good job of it too. I'm very impressed. If Saerules doesn't take him to task, and expose the sophistry for the sham argument that it is, she will have conceded him the advantage early in this debate.
But on the other hand, Arcanus is very vulnerable here. If Saerules does expose him at length and in depth, Arcanus could lose most of his credibility right from the start and may never be able to recover.
We shall see what happens.

(September 13, 2009 at 9:46 am)leo-rcc Wrote: So what that he is pro-life? Why would you stop watching and listening for that?

I shouldn't. It was irrational of me, it's because I cringe sometimes when I remember him once saying that to him an unborn child is 'just that...an unborn child.' But that is not the issue, and not the priority because a small bunch of cells don't feel anything. If he's only talking about the later stages, I don't know why he expressed it that way.

He mentioned in a debate, the idea of children getting cheated out of chance of life. But this doesn't make any logical sense to me because they're not even born yet. When they can feel, that's a different matter.

So it was, indeed, entirely irrational of me. And I've started listening/watching again, my intital reaction to that was just so "ugh" that I had trouble...it is indeed irrelevant to his arguments on religion.

EvF

Everything Boteach said made my eyes water. Especially when he was talking about 16 billion years of Earth's history. Earth predating the universe = lol.

"I'm no scientist"
You don't need to declare that, sir. It's clear to all of us.

He just got worse and worse towards the end. Retorth, just to make it perfectly clear, Void was asking you to take notes from Hitchens's debating style Please never adopt the Rabbi's style.

(September 13, 2009 at 10:00 am)LukeMC Wrote: Retorth, just to make it perfectly clear, Void was asking you to take notes from Hitchens's debating style Please never adopt the Rabbi's style.

Unless you want to become a stand-up comedian. He's so laughable it's funny (oops, got a bit tautological there didn't I?).

EvF

(September 13, 2009 at 10:00 am)LukeMC Wrote: Retorth, just to make it perfectly clear, Void was asking you to take notes from Hitchens's debating style Please never adopt the Rabbi's style.

LoL I roger that!

(September 13, 2009 at 10:00 am)LukeMC Wrote: Retorth, just to make it perfectly clear, Void was asking you to take notes from Hitchens's debating style Please never adopt the Rabbi's style.

Hitchens' Not Hitchens's

(September 13, 2009 at 11:09 am)theVOID Wrote: Hitchens' Not Hitchens's

Actually both are grammatically correct.

That Rabbi was a moron though.

(September 13, 2009 at 12:20 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(September 13, 2009 at 11:09 am)theVOID Wrote: Hitchens' Not Hitchens's

Actually both are grammatically correct.

That Rabbi was a moron though.

Yeah Never heard more ad hominem, quote mining, lies, misdirection, side tracking and shit talking in a single debate.

I LOVED when he said Dawkins is one of the last biologists that believe in Evolution

Christopher Hitchen's debate introduction was classic!

"Gee, I don't know how I'm going to cover 15 minutes...seeing how the burden of proof doesn't lie with me.."