Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-07-2014, 10:26 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2014 10:44 PM by Mark Fulton.)
Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
The topic was the resurrection of Jesus. It was 1 o'clock in the morning in Australia and I was talking via Skype. I must admit I was nervous as it was my first time and I was up against a very well oiled and experienced debater.

Unfortunately there were technical issues with my (brand-new and expensive) headset, so I couldn't hear a lot of what he said. Oh well.

I would appreciate any feedback, including criticism.

It was a good experience and I'll be smoother and more relaxed next time...and I'll have equipment that works.

Here it is...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/healingxout...reasonable
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
12-07-2014, 10:52 PM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
I'm 25 minutes in and am impressed you addressed many key points about the history and mystery surrounding Jesus. What I liked most was when you quoted Jesus and his intention "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword."

Will see what others have to contribute, but there's obviously a lot that's been covered throughout the video so I highlighted that one quote that I'm really glad you addressed in your opening.

As far as I've watched, this is very good and you didn't seem nervous at all. Your voice is sometimes quiet and then loud but overall I didn't struggle to hear you.

Great job Thumbsup

Everyday is judgement day. Use your judgement, use reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Freethought's post
12-07-2014, 11:24 PM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(12-07-2014 10:52 PM)Freethought Wrote:  I'm 25 minutes in and am impressed you addressed many key points about the history and mystery surrounding Jesus. What I liked most was when you quoted Jesus and his intention "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, it is not peace I have come to bring but a sword."

Will see what others have to contribute, but there's obviously a lot that's been covered throughout the video so I highlighted that one quote that I'm really glad you addressed in your opening.

As far as I've watched, this is very good and you didn't seem nervous at all. Your voice is sometimes quiet and then loud but overall I didn't struggle to hear you.

Great job Thumbsup

Thanks! I really appreciate the feedback!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 01:24 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(12-07-2014 10:26 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The topic was the resurrection of Jesus. It was 1 o'clock in the morning in Australia and I was talking via Skype. I must admit I was nervous as it was my first time and I was up against a very well oiled and experienced debater.

Unfortunately there were technical issues with my (brand-new and expensive) headset, so I couldn't hear a lot of what he said. Oh well.

I would appreciate any feedback, including criticism.

It was a good experience and I'll be smoother and more relaxed next time...and I'll have equipment that works.

Here it is...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/healingxout...reasonable

Hey Mark, I think you did fairly well, though I think you were a little apprehensive and perhaps a tad impatient with your opponent... Which given your opposition I can completely understand.

I recall the he referred to Josephus on serve occasions as an out-side Babal source, which is interesting; I recall hearing that his references culminated to a few sentences and referred to christians instead of Christ... Can you perhaps point me to better sources on his work?

On another note; I found your opposition's clinging to miracles to be fascinating. He repeatedly argues that you have nothing to say as you don't accept them, and claims that you have a bias against them, but he seems completely oblivious to his own very apparent bias towards them and the fact that he is so reliant on his presupposition of them that he has nowhere to go outside of the roundabout. How people compartmentalise such things is interesting indeed.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 02:25 AM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2014 02:32 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 01:24 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(12-07-2014 10:26 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The topic was the resurrection of Jesus. It was 1 o'clock in the morning in Australia and I was talking via Skype. I must admit I was nervous as it was my first time and I was up against a very well oiled and experienced debater.

Unfortunately there were technical issues with my (brand-new and expensive) headset, so I couldn't hear a lot of what he said. Oh well.

I would appreciate any feedback, including criticism.

It was a good experience and I'll be smoother and more relaxed next time...and I'll have equipment that works.

Here it is...

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/healingxout...reasonable

Hey Mark, I think you did fairly well, though I think you were a little apprehensive and perhaps a tad impatient with your opponent... Which given your opposition I can completely understand.

I recall the he referred to Josephus on serve occasions as an out-side Babal source, which is interesting; I recall hearing that his references culminated to a few sentences and referred to christians instead of Christ... Can you perhaps point me to better sources on his work?

On another note; I found your opposition's clinging to miracles to be fascinating. He repeatedly argues that you have nothing to say as you don't accept them, and claims that you have a bias against them, but he seems completely oblivious to his own very apparent bias towards them and the fact that he is so reliant on his presupposition of them that he has nowhere to go outside of the roundabout. How people compartmentalise such things is interesting indeed.

Thanks for the feedback. One has to be careful not to make ad hominems against an opponent as that makes things unpleasant for everyone. I've also got to be careful not to get frustrated, and I was a little .... both with him and with the fact that I often couldn't hear him.

I found it a bit frustrating that he would make, say, 20 comments in a row, each of which I would have liked to address, but the most of the debate wasn't structured that way. For example he repeatedly got away with the argumentum ad numerum...ie "most scholars believe this therefore it must be true...."

"I recall hearing that his references culminated to a few sentences and referred to christians instead of Christ... Can you perhaps point me to better sources on his work?"

Flavius Josephus, (37–100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html) although not all scholars accept this (http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14157). So if Yeshua existed, either Josephus chose not to write about him, or early Christians destroyed his record because it didn’t fit with their manufactured image.

Yes I couldn't understand why he kept rabbiting on about miracles and why he seemed surprised that I didn't believe in them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 02:29 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
I actually felt quite embarrassed that I had no idea what the caller at 102:38 was asking.

Can anyone else makes sense of his question?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 02:40 AM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2014 02:44 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 02:25 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I found it a bit frustrating that he would make, say, 20 comments in a row, each of which I would have liked to address, but the most of the debate wasn't structured that way. For example he repeatedly got away with the argumentum ad numerum...ie "most scholars believe this therefore it must be true...."

Theists hilariously try the gish gallop a lot on this forum but that's easy because you can address each point. It only works in a live discussion. It's a intellectually dishonest way of sneaking your point across without having to worry about it being addressed.

I have often wondered how you would counter a gish gallop in a live discussion. The best I can think of is to have a note pad and pen handy and to write down each of their points and then respond to each one. That way not only do you nullify their gish gallop but you turn it against them as they then need to address all your responses.The difficulty is in writing it down fast enough but I think it can be done.

The only intention of a live debate is to make it sound convincing to the audience. You don't have time for anything else. This is why the gish gallop works in such a situation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 02:43 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 02:29 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I actually felt quite embarrassed that I had no idea what the caller at 102:38 was asking.

That's also a problem during a live presentation, especially in academia when people can have very strong accents. It's happened to me a few times and I just end up answering what I hoped or guessed that they were asking. It's either that or make it really awkward. If you did get it wrong and they really want to get an answer then they will try again in a different way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 03:33 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 02:40 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(13-07-2014 02:25 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I found it a bit frustrating that he would make, say, 20 comments in a row, each of which I would have liked to address, but the most of the debate wasn't structured that way. For example he repeatedly got away with the argumentum ad numerum...ie "most scholars believe this therefore it must be true...."

Theists hilariously try the gish gallop a lot on this forum but that's easy because you can address each point. It only works in a live discussion. It's a intellectually dishonest way of sneaking your point across without having to worry about it being addressed.

I have often wondered how you would counter a gish gallop in a live discussion. The best I can think of is to have a note pad and pen handy and to write down each of their points and then respond to each one. That way not only do you nullify their gish gallop but you turn it against them as they then need to address all your responses.The difficulty is in writing it down fast enough but I think it can be done.

The only intention of a live debate is to make it sound convincing to the audience. You don't have time for anything else. This is why the gish gallop works in such a situation.

Great stuff! Thanks for telling me....I'll be more aware of it in the future.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2014, 03:59 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 02:29 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I actually felt quite embarrassed that I had no idea what the caller at 102:38 was asking.

Can anyone else makes sense of his question?

You mean Caller 204?

He says "(He'd) like to come back to Mark's atheistic commitments here. i have a question about what that would entail. ... In an atheist universe, you have a universe that's ultimately meaningless, and contingency would be ultimate, and that would mean that anything might have happened or could have happened. I wanna know how he thinks intelligent historical research could precede in an atheist universe.
...
to do research, you have to arrive at probable conclusions, but it seems to me in a universe where contingency is ultimate, you wouldn't even be able arrive at probable conclusions; you'd have to assume the validity of the inductive principal and you can't really do that as an atheist. How can you do that as an atheist? You'd have to have a Christian presupposition."

Personally, I can't make heads nor tails of his argument.

He uses phrases like 'inductive principle' but doesn't define them; I am guessing he is trying to allude to the Problem of Induction which, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica is
Quote: problem of induction, problem of justifying the inductive inference from the observed to the unobserved. It was given its classic formulation by the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–76), who noted that all such inferences rely, directly or indirectly, on the rationally unfounded premise that the future will resemble the past.
This doesn't really seem applicable as discussing the probability of an event doesn't really rely on the assumption that the future would resemble the past...

Anybody else want to step up tot he plate; Philosobull is about twenty kilometres out of my ball park.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: