Breeds of Apologists (and how to debate them)

[DeistPaladin]

I just had this idea to start this thread on how to identify a breed of apologist, the arguments and fallacies they favor and how to debate them. This may be valuable since I have seen the same patterns emerge again and again among different apologists in many debate mediums. I'll get the ball rolling but hope others will have their own insights and input.

Breeds of apologist should be classified by demeanor (how they package their arguments and present themselves), possible nature (admissions they tend to make and speculations on likely motives), favorite fallacies (ones that seem to come up most frequently) and suggested strategy (how to best call them out on their bs).

I'll start with my favorite:

The Pompous Apologist

Demeanor: This apologist wants to come across as a professor of philosophy and the skeptics are all students to be lectured and graded. You can spot them not just by their arrogant demeanor and snippy, dismissive attitude toward their opponent, but also by their use of philosophy terms, Latin phrases and accusations (well founded or not) of logical fallacies by their opponent. In debate, they will go on the offensive, looking for any mistakes by the skeptic to harp on, whether these mistakes be something as trivial as a grammatical error or one that is beside the point .
Possible Nature: This breed of apologist seems intelligent and educated enough to pull off this act. They seem to think playing up the professorial act will help obfuscate the absence of any evidence for their claims. They also seem savvy enough to know that the best defense is a good offense. My experience is they tend to be sleazy and you can usually catch them in a lie if you are patient enough.
Favorite Fallacies: Poisoning the Well and red herring. They will try their utmost to undermine your credibility or insult your lack of scholarship. Where possible, they will shift the discussion away from the topic to harp on some mistake you've made.
Suggested Strategy: Keep a cool head. Don't react to their insults or respond in kind. They'll put their hand on their chest as say "what was that about?" Don't use sarcasm or humor. They'll use it to suggest you're not a serious debater. Don't get distracted as they employ red herring evasion. Keep their feet to the fire and remind them the burden of proof is on them. Keep at them with polite demands that they talk about what they believe and how they justify those beliefs. Use the quote function to take them back to what they said earlier. These apologists will lie about what they said earlier, so always be ready to go to the tape.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

I Agree with everthing except;IN is missing before the first word of the subject of this thread.

[Creed of Heresy]

My personal favorites are any apologists who use the post hoc fallacy.

---

Also, I have a Christian friend who is absolutely awful when it comes to the utilization of red herrings because he knows my attention span is so easily led off-course at the best of times.

Also he called evolution a hypothesis. I uh...didn't take too kindly to that.

[Anomalocaris]

I'll cut to the chase, different manners of apology does not change the nature of what they are apologizing for:

[Cyberman]

This is a brilliant idea; it's like our own version of Pokémon cards. Gotta catch 'em all out!

[mr.atheist]

How about the ones that when you use a quote from the bible to show how horrible it is,they always say you are taking it out of context? But they do the same.Or the ones that say that people who do bad things because of religion say those people aren't true christians and been a true christian means following christ?

I dont even know if you could them as apologists but they are arguments I have heard for religion.Just thought I would bring them up.

[DeistPaladin]

How about the ones that when you use a quote from the bible to show how horrible it is,they always say you are taking it out of context? But they do the same.Or the ones that say that people who do bad things because of religion say those people aren't true christians and been a true christian means following christ?

I dont even know if you could them as apologists but they are arguments I have heard for religion.Just thought I would bring them up.

...this sounds like...

The Liberal Apologist

Demeanor: Jesus is love to these Christians and somehow mainstream Christianity has managed to get it all wrong for 2000 years. Apparently, the greatest Christian minds just aren't as smart as these people. How unfortunate for Christianity's victims since then.
Possible Nature: These people aren't necessarily liberals in the political, social or economic sense. They may be Republicans or Democrats. What they all have in common is their desire to make Jesus in their own image. The Bible says whatever they want it to say and no interpretation is too obtuse.
Favorite Fallacies: "Quote mining", "special pleading", "ad hoc hypothesis" and most of all, "moving the goal posts"
Suggested Strategy: While debating a fundamentalist may seem like assaulting a fortress, debating the liberal apologist is more like guerrilla warfare. They are nowhere and everywhere. Pinning them down on anything may be neigh impossible as they shamelessly shift positions on a dime. Focus on the most important question: Is the Bible the Word of God or is it Not the Word of God? Expect them to offer and try to justify a "sort of" answer where parts were "inspired" and other parts not so much. At this point, ask them to explain how they know which is which. Since we are not God or angels, how should we be able to tell the difference. When they offer nothing more than "you just know", they've revealed that they're making up their own religion and their own Holy Book and can dispense with the pretense of calling themselves "Christian".

[Faith No More]

Gee...I wonder who around here falls into that first breed...

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

The Spammy Spamster Apologist

Demeanor: Has only the ability to copy and paste large chunks from the Bible or from articles on the internet. Adds little if any original input from themselves.

Possible Nature:Most likely to be 12 years old.

Favorite Fallacies: All of them.

Suggested Strategy: Ban.

[DeistPaladin]

The Philoso-Babbler

Demeanor: The Philoso-babbler is similar to the Pompous Apologist but without the education or intellect needed to pull off the pseudo-professorial role. Like his/her Pompous kin, there's a heavy reliance on philosophy but more on the canned (and repeatedly debunked) arguments like the Ontological Argument.
Possible Nature: This type heard the Presuppositional Argument and thought it was a slam dunk. They seem to think "God-(verb)-It" is a good explanation for anything.
Favorite Fallacies: "Bare Assertion", "Circular Reasoning", "Non Sequitur", and "Special Pleading"
Suggested Strategy: Really? You want to waste your time? This bozo is self-pwning. However, he does make for good practice for the beginner skeptic as they sharpen their debate skills.

---

The Fundy Fucktard

Demeanor: This breed is the mirror opposite of the "Liberal" apologist. They know what the Bible says and surprisingly are just fine with it. They have no need to reconcile science with their faith, as "evilution" is a great conspiracy and the world is really 6-10 thousand years old.
Possible Nature: Nothing hidden about this one. All the cards are on the table and anyone who's read the Bible will find them as predictable as the next sunrise. In a way, their consistency is refreshing, especially if you've just gone a few rounds with a Liberal apologist.
Favorite Fallacies: "Appeal to Fear"
Suggested Strategy: There's little hope for this one but they can be useful as a case study on what happens to your brain if you actually believe this stuff.
EDIT TO ADD: Just for fun, if you are able, put them in a room with a Liberal apologist and watch the sparks fly.