Quote:
Originally Posted by NotReady
If Dawkins would admit he's incompetent at debate and doesn't want to give Craig a forum, you might have a point. The problem is Dawkins says a debate with Craig would enhance Craig's resume but not his, thus implying that he is somehow superior to Craig. That Dawkins is being dishonest about that is now being realized by Oxford atheists. I suspect Craig would make quite a few concessions to Dawkins - that Dawkins won't even try to come to an agreement is pretty revealing.
You are confusing someone who disagrees with Dawkins with someone who realizes "that Dawkins is being dishonest."
Is it so hard to imagine that Dawkins truly does not like WLC's message, and truly believes that appearing across from him in a debate would merely give WLC a wider audience? Far from being a lie on the part of Dawkins, I would argue that it is undeniably true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All-In Flynn
I have noticed the pattern you mention. It's a little frustrating to me because it seems quite exploitable. If someone would review and note the likely points he will raise and claims he will make, they could probably show up at the podium with a ready-made rebuttal. Then we might have a game.
I'm not convinced it would be as easy as you suggest. Surely it could be done, but the thing to remember is that when Craig speaks first and dumps all his pre-packaged points, and then declares himself the winner if/when his opponent fails to address those points, something really insidious is going on. Not only is Craig demanding that his opponents frame the debate as he wishes to frame it, or else lose by failing to address his points, but Craig is not personally "proving" his points; he is just listing them, and will actually say in a debate that he has expanded on them elsewhere but for purposes of the debate he is just essentially going to list the names of the arguments. So his opponent is essentially being required to make Craig's argument for him, and then disprove it, if he wants to play that game.
Or, they could do what virtually every debater has done so far, and make a smallish attempt at directly refuting some of what Craig says, and then go on and try to make the points that seem interesting and relevant to them, and hope to "win" by appealing more to crowd overall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
The dumber the opponent the wronger your side can be to give you a chance. But Dawkins is a relatively smart guy and therefore he shouldn't lose unless the other side is on solid ground.
Have you ever seen a debate? Maybe you should check out some of the debates by Dawkins and Craig on the internet. Your comment strikes me as saying that which ever basketball team is the most accurate at shooting freethrows should win the game, and ignoring the fact that a basketball game involves running, jumping, blocking, endurance, fouls, and whatever else a basketball game actually involves.