Dawkins' Debate Rejections

[Pizza]

... This is exascerbated by the fact that he is really not a very skilled debater. ...

Yes, debating is a skill, so that who appears to "win" a debate is not necessarily the one who is most reasonable or is speaking the truth.  Indeed, bold lying can be an effective strategy in a debate.  I would never do a formal public debate with anyone about anything.

Anyone who is serious about a topic should research it rather than just listen to a debate about it.  Who "wins" a debate is more about the debaters than about the subject under discussion.

I've heard people evaluate debates based on who converted the most people in the audience to their side. Which is bizarre. If most of the audience believes Christian theism is true and are Craig fans, I don't see  what Craig and his ilk actually do but entertain their fans and fellow tribe members. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I like the occasional debate but I'm not as big a fan of them these days. Like you and others have said they are more about sound bites and zingers than content.

[Longhorn]

Don't give them attention. They'll feel like their delusion has some validity in real life

[AFTT47]

... This is exascerbated by the fact that he is really not a very skilled debater. ...

Yes, debating is a skill, so that who appears to "win" a debate is not necessarily the one who is most reasonable or is speaking the truth.  Indeed, bold lying can be an effective strategy in a debate.  I would never do a formal public debate with anyone about anything.

Anyone who is serious about a topic should research it rather than just listen to a debate about it.  Who "wins" a debate is more about the debaters than about the subject under discussion.

Very good point. Formal debates are an artificial construct allowing people on the wrong side to employ tactics effective at "winning over" the ignorant listeners.

Formal debates are only useful when both participants participate in good faith to show that their point of view has the most merit from a scientific point of view - and when the audience is educated enough on the subject to see through the bullshit. Otherwise, it's a farce.

[Cephus]

I understand his standpoint. There are some debates not worth having. I think, all these debates are overrated anyway. They don't change anyone's mind and they're the equivalent of preeching to the quire for each participant.

Perhaps the biggest problem though is that serious scientific questions are not solved in a debate setting.  Creationists learned back in the 80s that the way to "win" a debate was to engage in the Gish gallop, throw as many ridiculous things out at the beginning and since these assertions take time to answer, time that doesn't exist in a debate setting, the creationist can always declare victory because the scientist supposedly "can't answer the questions".  I don't blame Dawkins for not debating them. I refuse to even talk to them anymore, they're all blatantly dishonest.

[CapnAwesome]

Debate is overrated. Someone can be a brilliant debater and still be totally wrong. Why even bother. I would do the same as Dawkins.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Atheist demonstrates how there isn't any evidence for an invisible man in the sky. Theist continues his/her script, not listening to one thing the atheist says. Many audience members think they've both made good points, when in fact, they haven't.

Good choice Dawkins; you do have more important things to do. The theists will ridicule you, but that's because they are too butthurt, because every single argument of theirs has failed miserably, and they are completely out of them.. WHY? Because there is no evidence for a god. End of debate.

[abaris]

I've heard people evaluate debates based on who converted the most people in the audience to their side.

Personally I think debates are the perfect example of mirror jerking. And I don't think they do convert that many people to one side or the other. The fans of the debaters want their darling to win and in their perception they will see them win whatever happens.

Same goes for political debates for that matter.

[Pizza]

Craig is master of the Gish gallop. That is true.

[Mudhammam]

I personally would find it quite enjoyable to watch a debate between someone like Dawkins and a proponent of ID. I don't think there is anything inherently stupid in the notion that complexity at the microscopic level of biological structures cannot be accounted for by the traditional explanations of evolutionary theory, and reflect something of an ingenious program.

[Alex K]

I personally would find it quite enjoyable to watch a debate between someone like Dawkins and a proponent of ID. I don't think there is anything inherently stupid in the notion that complexity at the microscopic level of biological structures cannot be accounted for by the traditional explanations of evolutionary theory, and reflect something of an ingenious program.

It could be interesting, but Dawkins isn't good enough. I'd pick Coyne.