I found this a couple months ago and it sums up pretty much every debate I've ever seen with WLC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozos1_rxDxs
What I would like is for someone debating WLC (or any apologist for that matter) to spend a few minutes of their opening statement talking about the tactics apologists like him use (the big words, the non-evidential or untrue premises, the claiming of victory when one of their arguments is not addressed because they rattled off 50 of them in 5 minutes, etc.) and then spend a portion of their closing arguments revisiting these tactics and pointing out how and where the apologist just used them.
It's a shame that this person would have to spend their time educating the audience like that, but at the same time I think it would really valuable, and maybe the only take-away from the debate for most.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozos1_rxDxs
What I would like is for someone debating WLC (or any apologist for that matter) to spend a few minutes of their opening statement talking about the tactics apologists like him use (the big words, the non-evidential or untrue premises, the claiming of victory when one of their arguments is not addressed because they rattled off 50 of them in 5 minutes, etc.) and then spend a portion of their closing arguments revisiting these tactics and pointing out how and where the apologist just used them.
It's a shame that this person would have to spend their time educating the audience like that, but at the same time I think it would really valuable, and maybe the only take-away from the debate for most.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
