Who cares about these debates?
I've listened to quite a few and ever since the first I thought that the format was rubbish.
One guy stalks and talks and talks.
Then the other guy talks and talks and talks.... while trying to address some of the points in the first guy's account.
Then the first can argue with the points of the second guy.... but has less than half the time of his opening statement.
Then the second guy argues with the points of the first guy... but, as it is with humans, will basically address what the guy said in the second part.
Then, with even less time, the first guy can answer back...
Then the same for the second guy...
And that's it.
There's no discussion of ideas, only two people trying to convince the audience of a given point of view.
To me, a debate involves a discussion of ideas and the standard "formal debate" format is anything but a discussion. It's a match of rhetoric skills. Who manages to have the better rhetoric, wins... yea...
I enjoy much more listening to the guy sat the atheist experience answering the callers, or a few interviews on "news" channels, than these "formal debates".
And this is why I didn't dislike the HamzaVsKrauss debate... Krauss tried to make it a conversation... too bad Hamza didn't follow through.
About Dawkins: Dawkins is not versed in rhetoric. He's versed in biology. As such, he finds the "formal debate" format stupid, while clearly acknowledging that most theologians are well versed in the art of rhetoric and will always appear to beat him.... Of course, pre-debate bias counts a lot, and on average, throughout the world, the audience will be 20% atheist, 80% theist... a discouraging crowd, to say the least.
I've listened to quite a few and ever since the first I thought that the format was rubbish.
One guy stalks and talks and talks.
Then the other guy talks and talks and talks.... while trying to address some of the points in the first guy's account.
Then the first can argue with the points of the second guy.... but has less than half the time of his opening statement.
Then the second guy argues with the points of the first guy... but, as it is with humans, will basically address what the guy said in the second part.
Then, with even less time, the first guy can answer back...
Then the same for the second guy...
And that's it.
There's no discussion of ideas, only two people trying to convince the audience of a given point of view.
To me, a debate involves a discussion of ideas and the standard "formal debate" format is anything but a discussion. It's a match of rhetoric skills. Who manages to have the better rhetoric, wins... yea...
I enjoy much more listening to the guy sat the atheist experience answering the callers, or a few interviews on "news" channels, than these "formal debates".
And this is why I didn't dislike the HamzaVsKrauss debate... Krauss tried to make it a conversation... too bad Hamza didn't follow through.
About Dawkins: Dawkins is not versed in rhetoric. He's versed in biology. As such, he finds the "formal debate" format stupid, while clearly acknowledging that most theologians are well versed in the art of rhetoric and will always appear to beat him.... Of course, pre-debate bias counts a lot, and on average, throughout the world, the audience will be 20% atheist, 80% theist... a discouraging crowd, to say the least.
