tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4499383358036698058..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Constructive criticism on the rumble in SydneyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78329930829105614822008-10-24T08:29:00.000-05:002008-10-24T08:29:00.000-05:00Who says we don't argue with people live and witho...Who says we don't argue with people live and without rules? Nobody's stopping you, I'm just saying that it's a little harder to get a broad audience for a random street fight that you pick. :)<BR/><BR/>Do people argue informally without rules in a prominent public setting? Sure they do; they're called Sunday talk shows, and you're free to give them a try... in my opinion they're completely godawful. I'm just saying, there are reasons to have formal, structured debates. There's a time for a rigid timed format, and a time for shouting matches, and I don't think you should dismiss the value of either one out of hand.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I do prefer at least a little bit of cross-examination period in my debates, which Alan's debate was lacking.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-10458398257468764832008-10-23T21:40:00.000-05:002008-10-23T21:40:00.000-05:00@ericMaybe over the phone on an internet radio sho...@eric<BR/><BR/>Maybe over the phone on an internet radio show would be a better format? Might be harder to get someone from the theist side, but the time could be virtually unlimited. As it is, an actual real-world debate like this one, hosted in a physical location...I think it'd be hard to (a) get the venue that long and (b) get enough people willing to come to an "endless" debate to make it worthwhile enough. Now if only we knew anyone with an online radio show of some sort...hmmmm.Sparrowhawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16520765821903563677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-255694550433745722008-10-23T21:24:00.000-05:002008-10-23T21:24:00.000-05:00Wouldn't it be nice if, for once, someone held a d...Wouldn't it be nice if, for once, someone held a debate where (1) the participants interact directly with each other instead of making speeches, and (2) there is no time limit? The format used in this debate seems to be taken from high school and college debating societies (where the participants are assigned a topic and position shortly before the debate begins). That format is designed to showcase debating skills, and is ill-suited to get at the truth. Sadly, almost every atheism/theism debate I have heard uses some variation of that format.<BR/><BR/>If I were to debate an issue with a group of friends or family, we would not dream of imposing a format where participants make time-limited speeches ... we would just talk about the issue and, if all parties are open-minded and intellectually honest (sadly, a rarity), hopefully come to a consensus. So why is it that more formal debates are never like that?<BR/><BR/>I am in no way criticizing Alan or Russell. Atheists should take whatever opportunities present themselves to get their message out. I just think that when it comes to debating, we can do much better.Eric Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922202712275593959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-30562942038475051062008-10-23T17:11:00.000-05:002008-10-23T17:11:00.000-05:00I think this is a great friendly criticism of how ...I think this is a great friendly criticism of how Alan did. I think you're right in pointing out that the only advantage Mike had was that he was working the crowd a little better. Although...to be honest I recall quite a few moments where more people than just the ones filming were it seemed like people were laughing AT Mike, rather than with him, but I could be wrong on that.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, Alan, I think you should have jumped on him a lot harder for NOT understanding what atheism actually is...and then just blowing it off as if it weren't relevant to the debate. No...if the debate is about whether or not atheism makes more sense...it has to be defined. I would have drilled him a bit harder on that point...made him to look like someone who was afraid to actually debate the real issue. I agree with Russell though...you should NOT feel bad at all about your performance. You did better, you just could have stood to be a bit more affable and a lot more aggressive. Remember, when you attack Mike's arguments...you're not attacking Mike himself, so don't be afraid to sink your teeth in a bit.Sparrowhawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16520765821903563677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21528333036932376202008-10-23T00:58:00.000-05:002008-10-23T00:58:00.000-05:00Thanks Kazim.Good advice perhpas you could conside...Thanks Kazim.<BR/><BR/>Good advice perhpas you could consider writing a training resource?Sean Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14485575602984697926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65879457355480450402008-10-22T21:34:00.000-05:002008-10-22T21:34:00.000-05:00Love love love these types of posts, Kazim. Same w...Love love love these types of posts, Kazim. Same with your Evangelizing lecture. This talk of how to properly get messages across in a debate/conversation is something that is incredibly important.<BR/><BR/>One thing though - you mentioned debate flowing which I am unfamiliar with. Do you know of any good resources for introduction debate flowing? I found a few online about how to make a flow -better- but nothing that could serve as a good base.crucifinchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00429734446264622626noreply@blogger.com