Yes, I really am debating Richard Carrier...

[Rational Gaze]

That's OK because JP is an Imbecile and will still lose!

Why am I not filled with confidence? Oh yeah, because Carrier is so dumb that someone in high school could beat him.

[jpholding]

That's OK because JP is an Imbecile and will still lose!

Well, yo lunch has spoken. I'll win by a landslide.

[yo lunch]

Well, yo lunch has spoken. I'll win by a landslide.

Yes, you will be sliding alright! HA! HA! HA!

[jpholding]

Yes, you will be sliding alright! HA! HA! HA!

Sure will. Your big mouth makes a nice landing area, too.

[fm93]

Why am I not filled with confidence? Oh yeah, because Carrier is so dumb that someone in high school could beat him.

I object to that statement. We high schoolers don't wish to be associated with Carrier like that.

[BlacJac06]

In other news, I just got the email this morning. Mike Licona will be debating Bart Ehrman on Unbelievable. I believe it's going to be the second Saturday of this month.

Can't wait to hear this. Licona did a great job against Ehrman the first time. I like how Licona responded to Ehrman's line about how Licona's study ended with the same position he started; by stating that Ehrman's conclusions could have been influenced by him wanting to please his atheist professors at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Do you know what the subject of the discussion will be?

[yo lunch]

Why am I not filled with confidence? Oh yeah, because Carrier is so dumb that someone in high school could beat him.

I suspect that we are both biased against the opposition. We shall see who is correct! For my part, JP is a lightweight that will easily be defeated!

[yo lunch]

Sure will. Your big mouth makes a nice landing area, too.

Nope, your foot will be in your mouth!

[phaedrus]

Reluctant as I am to get involved in this snappy repartee, I don't see how anyone wins this kind of debate. The partisans on one side say their guy beat the pants off the other guy and vice versa. The audience leaves, buys a pizza and talks about movies. Does anybody ever actually change their mind?

[Manwë Súlimo]

Maybe you didn't read the part where JPH agrees that live oral debates are all but useless.

[phaedrus]

Maybe you didn't read the part where JPH agrees that live oral debates are all but useless.

Sorry, I did miss that. I didn't read the whole thread. I'm sure you understand why.

[fm93]

Sorry, I did miss that. I didn't read the whole thread. I'm sure you understand why.

I hope it's not because you're a pathetic whiner like 80% of the skeptics (and fundies) on this site who don't realize that only obnoxious trolls are attacked.

[Hamster]

Reluctant as I am to get involved in this snappy repartee, I don't see how anyone wins this kind of debate. The partisans on one side say their guy beat the pants off the other guy and vice versa. The audience leaves, buys a pizza and talks about movies. Does anybody ever actually change their mind?

Sometimes there are 'objective' judges who are fair, regardless of who they want to win. But for the most part I agree, no one really "wins" one unless someone seriously messes up

[Manwë Súlimo]

*cough*loftus*cough*

[Adrift]

Reluctant as I am to get involved in this snappy repartee, I don't see how anyone wins this kind of debate. The partisans on one side say their guy beat the pants off the other guy and vice versa. The audience leaves, buys a pizza and talks about movies. Does anybody ever actually change their mind?

I don't know who will win in this particular debate, but I think some debaters can effectively make their points better than others, and that really seems to be the goal. There seems to be a couple of ways one can be more effective. One can be a better at debate in general, or one can make stronger arguments than their opponent. I've watched debates where I thought someone was lacking in his arguments but his skill at debate got him through, and vice versa. Someone like WLC gets wins in debates because he extensively reads up on his opponent, knows what sort of arguments to predict and counters the arguments of his opponents by turning their arguments against them. Also he wins a lot of debates simply because he's a stickler to the agreed topic and his opponents do not. Loftus, though, occasionally has some interesting arguments, but his skill at live, formal debate is abysmal. From what I've seen of Loftus he loses because his arguments seem very emotion based and when countered he gets easily flustered and ends up spinning wheels. I've seen some debates that I think are a draw. I've seen debates where I think the Christian loses horribly. I try to keep as open a mind as I can while watching knowing that my own personal presuppositions can get in the way. I think its silly to say that live oral debates are all but useless though. I think they can sometimes be extremely beneficial for those on either side or for those sitting on the sidelines. My whole interest in apologetics formally started based on an amazing live debate between a Christian and an atheist I can't remember now except that the Christian apologist passed away sometime in the 90s. I wish now that I had saved that debate in some format, because it really helped change a number of my world views.