WORST BEHAVIOURS IN DEBATES COLLECTION

The following is not a list of utterly one-sided smackdowns, where someone is clearly outmatched in debating skill or because the topic is lopsidedly against them. There are plenty of those out there for your amusment (or lack thereof), and I’ve already covered some of them here: https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2022/12/18/hot-take-james-white-is-not-that-amazing-of-a-debator/

This is instead a collection of debates I’ve witnessed where at least one of the participants is behaving extremely rude, condescending, unreasonable, does something shockingly inappropriate or etc.

So here I present to you for your viewing (dis)pleasure…

—————

Exhibit A: “As though you people have any f^^^ing clue what any of us are talking about”

James Tour vs Dave Farina, where when the latter’s turn came around he immediately went all in on insults, accusations, character assassination, and some swearing for good measure.

As the title quote shows, Farina didn’t limit his disdain to his debate opponent – anyone in the audience who didn’t outright support that Tour is anidiot, was similarly an idiot to Farina.

Substance-wise, Tour seemed to know the science while Farina kept citing merely the titles and abstracts of research papers – which is Tour’s whole point about titles of papers being hyperbolic of what is actually accomplished by the experiments described within.

For just the hot takes:

Exhibit B: “WOW!!!!” [shout reverberates through the room]

This one was so infamous that people who witnessed it still mention it to this day. It’s not much exaggeration on my part when I describe the Determinist side’s opening statements as Severus Snape at his most condescending, followed by Jim Carrey at his most overacting.

I cover this debate more at https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2020/08/19/severus-snape-jim-carrey-do-a-debate/

---

Exhibit C: “They complain that just by showing up we’ve lost the debate – they haven’t even bothered to show up!”

This would be a standard theist vs atheist debate, except White & Durbin decided to take a full-blown pure presuppositional apologetics approach… And sadly, they brought along the arrogant condescension which is stereotypical of many of its adherents. They constantly asserted their position rather than argued it out, hence the title quote by the atheist debator.

That White is very proud of his performance and thinks he did an amazing job is evident from the ‘Incredible’ which he appends to the title on his own channel.

---

Exhibit D: “Scurrilous and gutter ad hominem attacks against me”

Robert Spencer is a very well-read scholar and prolific author on the subject of Islam, including a book questioning the Standard Islamic Narrative about the life (and very existence) of Muhammad.

Adnan Rashid meanwhile obviously had not read the book or done much research on the subject (if any), and resorted to insulting Spencer and repeatedly harping on the one red herring point about challenging Spencer on the difference between Anas ibn Malik vs Malik bin Anas.

(On an aside, Robert Spencer is also the debate opponent that I feel James White got most outplayed by by simple virtue of the weight of evidence on Spencer’s side. See the link at start of this post.)

---

Exhibit E: “You and your husband have a good day.”

If you take Matt Dillahunty’s side of the story, his debate opponent Andrew Wilson brought personal insults to the table. So, Dillahunty walked out in protest.

If you take Andrew Wilson’s side of the story, everyone already knows Dillahunty’s standard trope of demanding evidence for God, smugly saying he is not convinced regardless, and then claiming victory – so instead, Wilson took the route of granting Dillahunty’s whole thesis (that secular humanism can form ethical foundations) and showing how it cannot even support Dillahunty’s own self-declared goal of human flourishing, by referencing transgenders (one of whom Dillahunty was dating!): “If you don’t call these strange lunatics something they obviously aren’t, they might self-terminate. So in order to avoid that, we need to make everybody on planet Earth – to them this is ‘human flourishing’ – just redefine, pretend it’s true. How laughably absurd this worldview is”.

So with Dillahunty knowing he was outmaneuvered, he feigned indignance (after himself having tossed insults like ‘bumbling God’) and walked out to dodge the rest of the debate.

On an aside, just look how much they’ve shifted the Overton Window. Wilson saying “You and your husband have a good day” is a perfectly polite phrase. But people got offended by it, because society insists we must affirm whatever gender someone self-identifies as – in the case of Dillahunty’s romantic partner, a genetic male who identifies as a woman.

Under Atheism, Life Has No Meaning – Just Ask Atheists

In his presentation from 5:50 to 28:30, William Lane Craig makes use of plentiful quotes from atheists (such as Bertrand Russell, Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre) who have thought over the ramifications and logical conclusions of their beliefs, and admit that it leads to an absence of meaning.

As he summarizes at 26:53: “Indeed, it has been the atheists themselves as we have seen who have given the most poignant analyses of the human predicament. Let them speak for themselves. Without God, they tell us, life becomes absurd for it is without ultimate purpose, value or significance.”

BONUS: During the discussion, at 116:30:00 Craig reads a quote by one Steven Pinker. This enacts laughter because the lady he is addressing is Rebecca Goldstein – Steven Pinker’s wife.

Via William Meme Craig:

The Rebel Religion During the Millennial Kingdom

Imagine the world suffused with secular humanism, naturalism and atheism. The supernatural is rejected outright based on those presuppositions.

Consider how people in such a culture would parse the Second Coming of Christ, as He descends from the sky in blazing glory with armies of glorious angelic beings. The military might of humanity’s armies are flicked aside like in the Seven Hour War from Half-Life 2. (Revelation 19:11-21)

Wouldn’t the unbelieving people of Earth view this as a full scale alien invasion? Perhaps the Beast even uses this cover story to rally the armies of men who futilely throw their lives away in ‘defense’ of their planet. Note that Richard Dawkins has bluntly stated that “A non-supernatural Second Coming could be aliens from outer space” – anything but God!

Continuing on, Jesus – ahem, I mean, the ‘Alien Supreme Ruler’ – sets up a puppet government based in Jerusalem, where human collaborators are bestowed unnaturally long lives by the advanced alien techonology (Revelation 20:4-6).

Meanwhile, those subjugated nations which dare to defy the alien conquerers will be punished by inhumane weapons such as disintegrator rays, genetically modified viruses and weather manipulation machines. (Zechariah 14:12-19)

During this time, the long-ignored Holy Texts of Dianetics make a resurgence among the alien-hating human populace. The Sacred Truth of Scientology spreads like wildfire in opposition to the collaborator’s alien-exalting superstitions.

Finally, after untold centuries of this brutal occupation, a Hero arises to rally the humans and retake Earth at long last! With this mysterious but charismatic leader at their head, the ‘Thetan Rebellion’ attacks en masse in an attempt to drive the Alien Supreme Ruler – Xenu himself! – from Jerusalem and planet Earth. (Revelation 20:7-10)

Personally, I demand that Tom Cruise play the lead role of the Hero in the eventual film adaptation. John Travolta can play Collaborator Lieutenant or something. Pics related.

MAKE MORE MODEST CLAIMS

I’ve heard William Lane Craig tell a Naturalist that they since they can’t actually prove that nothing beyond the natural realm exists, they need to ‘make more modest claims’ such as they DON’T KNOW whether anything beyond the natural realm exists.

I feel like this ‘Make more modest claims’ attitude should be more prevalent. It’s a form of humility.

Yes, we might be sure – ABSOLUTELY SURE – that our current position is correct. That it’s true, THE truth. That it’s GOD’S VERY OWN VIEW. And everyone who doesn’t agree is DEFINITELY, even HERETICALLY wrong.

We all know people like that. Or at least, we see them in the comments sections.

But remember a time before you adopted your current views? Were you just as certain you had the truth then? If so, then who is to say you have already arrived at the final, absolutely correct, no further progress needed set of views now?

How about those who differ in their opinions? If you aren’t yourself willing to take a neutral stance and have even the slightest possibility of reconsidering your position, why expect anyone else to?

Stating your beliefs more forcefully, self assuredly and confidently doesn’t automatically mean you are correct Otherwise, those guys who flew planes into the World Trade Center have all of us beat on claims to truth!

WHO ARE YOU, O MAN, TO TALK BACK TO MY INTERPRETATION AND UNDERSTANDING ON THIS ISSUE? (But… Aren’t we all also men/women?)

So I would humbly encourage everyone to ‘Make more modest claims’. Continue to explain what views you hold, and why you THINK or BELIEVE they are correct. (But I fear that it’s too much to ask for fallible humans to entertain the idea that they might be fallible.)

PS. I already expect a bunch of comments to arrive and Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Atheist Holdo Maneuver

When a New Atheist discovers a stale argument but serves it up like its fresh…

Reference for those who don’t catch it:

How The Last Jedi Destroyed The Continuity Of Star Wars [Storycraft]

So the concept of ships impacting things while travelling at lightspeed is indeed set-up in the Star Wars canon. Not to mention that hyperspace/lightspeed travel has been in existence for a long period of time in the Star Wars universe, so it stands to reason, due to External Consistency, that impacts of objects travelling at lightspeed have occurred before.

DETERMINISTIC CALVINISM, OPEN THEISM & ATHEISTIC FANG

For this exercise, we begin with ASSUMING the first premise is true:

1) If God knows the future, we don’t have actual free will (because the future is already set).

#########

Now we examine two different sets of premise+conclusion.

We start with Set A:

2) God knows the future.
3) Conclusion: Therefore, we don’t have free will.

The above is what deterministic Calvinists argue. The Calvinist panelist Chris Date says as much from 12:30 onwards:

########

Next, we look at Set B:

2) We have free will.
3) Conclusion: Therefore, God does not know the future.

The above is the position of Open Theism.

As you can see, both Sets hinge upon Premise 1 actually being true. Hence why it has been stated that Deterministic Calvinism and Open Theism are two sides of the same coin. They just reject different premises that flow from that first Premise 1. (For this post, I’m not going to delve into whether Premise 1 is true, and hence whether Sets A and B are correct.)

#######

Related to the these two Sets and still maintaining the assumption of Premise 1, the following is an atheist twist on it – Dan Barker’s FANG, the Freewill Argument for the Nonexistence of God:

1) If God knows the future, then HE doesn’t have actual free will (because the future is already set).
2) God knows His own future.
3) Therefore, God doesn’t have free will.

TBH I feel this is a silly argument. God cannot change His decisions cos He knows the future? That’s reversing cause and effect. If God changes His decision, the future will change contingent upon God’s choices.

It’s almost like saying just because I know what I want to do in the next 10 seconds, therefore I have no free will. (???)

MUSICAL STYLE – AN ARGUMENT FROM OBJECTIVE BEAUTY

1) There is an objective standard of beauty.
2) If there is an objective standard of beauty, there must be a standard giver.
3) As the only absolute being, the Christian God is the standard giver of beauty.
4) Therefore, that which is closer to the Christian God is closer to the objective standard of beauty.
5) Music is part of the range of subjects that can be described as having beauty.
6) European Classical music arose from a Christian context with Christian motivations.

…

7) Therefore in conclusion, European Classical music is objectively more beautiful than any other genre. 😏

On a related note, here is William Lane Craig making some music recommendations:

#######

14:50 “…things like beautiful music and art and other experiences where we grasp the beautiful, put us in contact with a kind of transcendent reality beyond scientific naturalism.

Scientific naturalism can give you a description of the sunset, of the refraction of the light rays through the atmosphere and the dust and the geology of the surrounding countryside and silver. But it can’t do anything to capture the beauty of the sunset.

And so if we can capture glimpses of this transcendent realm of beauty and value, I think this will prepare our hearts for a transcendent reality like God.”

[You recommended some symphonies and some other things. What did you recommend?]

“Well, I recommended Dvorak’s New World Symphony which I think is just beautiful. And then Rimsky-Korsakov’s Scheherazade which has this violin that just weeps, it is so gorgeous when this refrain comes on with the violin. I find this kind of music just sublime.”

#######

And the compositions he mentioned as follows:

CHANGE MY DETERMINISTIC MIND

TBH I’m surprised I never came up with it earlier.

For an explanation: WHY A CORRECT BELIEF DETERMINISM CANNOT BE RATIONAL

Related:

https://scottthong.wordpress.com/?s=determinism

DOES DETERMINISM ACTUALLY IMPACT ANYTHING?:

ZEUS & GANG VS HADES & GANG!!!

This meme inspired by the remarks at 87:20 onwards of the following:

The bottom of the meme was purposely chosen because Disney’s Hercules is where such a rivalry exists – not in actual Greek mythology.

Please don’t get your factual information from Disney cartoons.

……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-“……………………………..”-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..”~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….”~,_……..”~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….”-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……”;,,./`…./”…………../
…,,,___.`~,……”~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-“
…………/.`~,……`-………………………………./
………….`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..,__
,,_……….}.>-._……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,__……`,……………………………
……………….`=~-,,.,………………………….
…………………………..`:,,………………………`…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._……….._,-%…….`
……………………………..,

ONLY ONE ‘RIGHT’ GOD OUT OF MANY

The top half of the following image was circulating as a dumb (probably atheist) meme, so I made the bottom half as a response.

Cold case detective J Warner Wallace debunks the bad argument using the criminal suspect analogy:

Another way to respond is the Divine Council Worldview – many gods do exist, but they are all subject to and are not The Most High, who is YHWH: