am I missing some big mass of people who go to a theist vs atheist debate and change their opinion because of it? Seems pretty obvious that the public opinion of who won is going to be pretty close to the relative numbers of atheists and theists. There will be some that will acknowledge the other side won rhetorically, even though they are not converted by the arguments. And very few that actually change their opinion. And I think everyone recognizes that WLC has excellent rhetorical skills much like Hovind, so he should be able to get a few atheists to say he won a debate. But it doesn't mean much.

To those who say people can't change their opinion during a debate:

Craig's never lost a debate that I've seen. IMO this is due to a combination of his skill in debate and his tactical shrewdness - IIRC he does not debate unless he speaks first. This allows him to do what MelchyBeau called a 'topic dump' - set out five or six (or eight, in this case) points which he will claim his opponent must refute in detail or accept defeat. The academic value of such an exercise is pretty close to zero, obviously. But give the devil his due - Craig is very, very good at what he does.

Rosenberg fluffed it badly anyway, though, it was a walk in the park for Craig. R was clearly less used simply to speaking in public, never mind actual formal debate.

The Q&A session was a little more interesting despite some painful questions. The first guy waffling forever and then hey! his question only needed his last three or four sentences. And there's always one who flat-out doesn't know what has been meant by 'objective moral truth' for the entire course of the debate and has a real GOTCHA about moral contention. Checkmate, Craig! And a pretty decent smackdown from Rosenberg of the tool asking about his book while clearly never having read it.

Overall not as enjoyable as past encounters due to Rosenberg's flibbertiness but fun anyway given I had nothing else on.

Just watched this on youtube. Uninspiring performance from Hitchens, but damn, Stephen Fry absolutely killed it.

WLC is going to do 3 podcast commentaries on the rosenberg debate. Here's the first:

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Reaso...t_One_2013.mp3

OMFG this please. The topic should be specifically defined, and we at least need some reasonable pre-debate questionnaire/poll to identify potential bais from the audience. How else are the post-debate polls supposed to provide any helpful information?


...and this. It's the main reason I find little value in the formal debate structure.

Almost universally I find the post debate discussion between the debating parties to be more enjoyable and (a lot of the time) better at elucidating their respective philosophical arguments.

I agree, but that's because it's more of a free exchange of ideas, rather than a point-counterpoint competition.