tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004780183194129162.post3065040426530734123..comments2023-11-02T07:02:32.798-05:00Comments on Welcome to WOTM Watchdog!: Todd Friel: Master Debater?Former Follierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14057992409285178279noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004780183194129162.post-70717621203434199242007-10-02T17:29:00.000-05:002007-10-02T17:29:00.000-05:00Hey! Thanks for playing the WOTM Radio clips on yo...Hey! Thanks for playing the WOTM Radio clips on your show. I'm an evangelist and you're a real help! Thank you sincerely for your work in spreading the gospel.<BR/><BR/>good luck buddy. you will have no excuse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004780183194129162.post-38032571653643059302007-09-24T12:12:00.000-05:002007-09-24T12:12:00.000-05:00Well, for one, it's impossible to prove a negative...Well, for one, it's impossible to prove a negative - like having a "Does Zeus exist" debate between a Greco-Roman Pantheist and a American Evangelical/Fundamentalist and chiding the Christian for not being able to prove Zeus doesn't exist ... & gripes about Christianity are valid if the debate is centered around whether, for instance, 'Christianity is a force for good or bad' or the topic 'Just how immoral is Christianity" ... but, like I said above, debates are not helpful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004780183194129162.post-89225948764811138272007-09-22T13:03:00.000-05:002007-09-22T13:03:00.000-05:00why do atheists do "Does God Exist" debates if the...why do atheists do "Does God Exist" debates if they can't prove that He doesn't? Todd is right when he says that all atheists bring to the debate is gripes about Christianity. Your dislikes towards God/Christianity do not prove that God doesn't exist. And since those aren't valid arguments, why even debate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004780183194129162.post-36197560299467478432007-09-20T11:13:00.000-05:002007-09-20T11:13:00.000-05:00I'm going to defer to the Dawkins-Gould argument f...I'm going to defer to the Dawkins-Gould argument for not debating creationists ... though for a slightly different reason then the aforementioned Drs. suggested. <BR/><BR/>(To clarify, Dawkins and Gould didn't want to give creationists - whether YEC, OEC or ID - the satisfaction of being able to claim that an actual scientist gave them a platform to espouse their lies and distortions. This was not because they thought they'd lose per se but because being brought to the table is as clsoe to winning as they could ever get ... In otherwords, "it looks good on their CV, not mine".)<BR/><BR/>My position is that debates are not acceptable venues for the discussion of complex issues - esp. scientific issue such as the theory of evolution or, say, the theory of anthropogenic global warming. They are, pardon my language, 'swinging dick sessions' were the worst forms of polemic and rhetorical dishonesty are used to superficially damage an opponent. A dishonest person can win a debate because (1) ultimately debates are subjective encounters & (2) debates are not venues where complex issues and claims can be checked against the evidence. I can claim something that is completely false in a debate, which sounds reasonable, a get points for that, only to be proven wrong by a respectable method of inquiry after the debate has let out (often months later) - namely, the scientific method (methodological naturalism), peer-review, double-blind testing, etc.<BR/><BR/>Evolution, an ancient earth, an ancient universe, the Big Bang - these are successful theories (and facts) because they have passed muster in the competitive market place of science - not because someone won a three hour debate on youtube. The debate, if you will, happened over the course of months and years, with attempts to falsify theories, or with new evidence coming in ...<BR/><BR/>All over the web, on message boards, youtube comments, etc. you see things like, "Oh man, my christian friend could school you in a debate!" or "Oh man, my atheist friend could pwn the shit out of you in a debate" or "C'mon dude, let hime have it ..." This is not how knowledge progresses - its the equivelent of middle school bullying and patriarchal male aggression & I'd be happy if I never see another "evolution-creation" debate again ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004780183194129162.post-40428804935400378842007-09-17T00:25:00.000-05:002007-09-17T00:25:00.000-05:00To whoever takes on this job, I suggest watching a...To whoever takes on this job, I suggest watching and/or listening to as many of Mr. Friel's debates as you can and cataloging Mr. Friel's fallacies along the way. Study his mistakes. He probably makes a lot of them but commits only a few kinds, which he varies to prove different points. BoxerShorts lists three in this post and the Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies should help with the rest.<BR/><BR/>Another idea is just to catch and point out all of Mr. Friel's assumptions, asking for clarification each time. This will slow down the debate and make Mr. Friel look irrational.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com