Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2014, 03:19 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 07:58 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(13-07-2014 06:18 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Check out the pronunciation of 'zealot'. I think it's zell not ze-al but I could be wrong.

I've always heard it as 'zell-ot' too.

But that's probably the fault of regional dialect and a rather thick accent, and one might consider than a fault to not change.

Yep! If I mispronounce something I can always claim it's because of my Australian accent! LOL
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 03:49 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 06:18 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Atheist's critique of the atheist.

Areas for Improvement:

Be nicer at the start: Thank everyone and tip your hat to their qualifications ... which you can understate... this showing that you have researched them (even if you haven't). It will give them a swell of pride / a false sense of security as they'll think you are scared of them / a nervous moment as they realise they may have underestimated you... all at the same time.

Challenge the 'mythicist' assertion. You were painted as a crank and could have knocked that one on the head by stating that you are pointing out that the marketing of Jesus bears the hall-marks of other myths (e.g. the popularity of resurrection) and you were not saying that Jesus himself was a myth (even though you haven't ruled it out).

Check out the pronunciation of 'zealot'. I think it's zell not ze-al but I could be wrong.


Strengths:

Your style: To me, you did not seem nervous. You came across as humbly assertive and honest.
Saying "that's true" at one point was a masterstroke... It showed you were willing to listen and accede a point and at the same time implied that everything else Phil said was therefore not true.

Summarising the opponents points and repeating the question ("I think what you were asking... ") is a nice touch. It again shows you are listening and considering your answer.

Dan Dennett uses this similar approach... see insert on page 2:
"You can't find love in the dictionary"

Your purpose: Not a professional but just a humble guy who cares about his patients and started to question what he had been spoon-fed... that's a good angle and aims at your possible target audience: the hesitantly faithful.

Your innocence: Being new to this lets you get away with a few things (speaking after the bell; interrupting; dodging the 'only ask questions' rule). I don't think your opponent would have let an experienced debater get away with that.

Doing a Hitch: Apart from his opening statement, his time and your time were spent discussing your agenda. I think you did this (as Hitch did) simply by ignoring his points. Even if it was a tech problem that stopped you from hearing him, I think you should continue to use that tactic.

I enjoyed the sarcastic asides and the humour particularly the understatements ("active imagination", "didn't give a fig tree" and my favourite about the crucifixion "that didn't look good"... I nearly pissed myself!) but careful with those... don't forget that your opponent is not the ultimate audience.

"Dan Dennett uses this similar approach... see insert on page 2:
"You can't find love in the dictionary"" Nice...thanks.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 04:09 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(14-07-2014 03:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Dan Dennett uses this similar approach... see insert on page 2:
"You can't find love in the dictionary"" Nice...thanks.

That looks really useful! I'll read it later when I have some spare time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 04:38 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(14-07-2014 04:09 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 03:49 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "Dan Dennett uses this similar approach... see insert on page 2:
"You can't find love in the dictionary"" Nice...thanks.

That looks really useful! I'll read it later when I have some spare time.

No problem.

I used that technique in my boxing match with Drich. I even posted it there so he knew what I intended to do.

@Mark, I offered it as a suggestion because it helps one focus and also appear calm and considered, but I think it might be a luxury to use it in the timed debate format.

I just think it's something worth practicing.

Also, to add to Matty's comment... a pause is a very valuable tool if you think your audience is not listening. A moment of silence is attention-grabbing.
Again see Hitch... the master of the pregnant pause.

Don't worry about your accent. The other guy had a Murikan accent so you're already 1:0 up.

Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
14-07-2014, 10:29 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(14-07-2014 04:38 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(14-07-2014 04:09 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  That looks really useful! I'll read it later when I have some spare time.

No problem.

I used that technique in my boxing match with Drich. I even posted it there so he knew what I intended to do.

Notwithstanding that any conversation with Drich is a clear violation of Dennett's rule 6.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2014, 11:06 AM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
(13-07-2014 02:40 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  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.

Personally, I'd try to devote no more time to a particular item in a Gish gallop than the other person did. The whole point of a GG is to rapid-fire a bunch of BS out so the other person either wastes time addressing it or to make them look bad if they ignore it.

Rapid-fire responses back with just a bit of refutation. Ex: "We know [argument] is wrong because of findings from [counter-evidence]", and simply move on. No more elaboration necessary, if he didn't put in the time to elaborate his claim. You address his point, point out why it's wrong, and don't fall into his "waste your time" trap that he wants.

What's more: if he rapidly throws out a bunch of lies and you rapidly debunk them all with reasons, it may make it look like he really doesn't know what he's talking about. Of course, you have to be really rehearsed on your subject material to pull this off...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
14-07-2014, 05:55 PM
RE: Just had my first public debate, with pastor Phil Fernandes
unfortunately the christian apologist used a stupid claim
most theological experts agree X is true
A muslim would say the same of some DUDE riding a winged horse to heaven
Mr Dr Phil of pretending Theology does not equal history
it was like listening to a homeopath calling themselves a medical expert

I am guessing DR PHIL ( if that is his real name ) ha
Does not pay local land tax or rates on his own home ?
or is it just his church that is tax exempt ?
I AM NOT FROM USA so have no idea how your tax rules work

I think it surprising the amount of public benefit these people get in a so called secular state
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PigMonkeyandFrog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: