This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

WLC Wins Another Debate

#1PhiZZiZlePosted 2/2/2013 10:14:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84

William Lane Craig debate with Alex Rosenberg is now over, and the voting results are in. Dr. Craig won the debate among all three voting groups.

The official judges voted 4-2 in favor of Dr. Craig

The Purdue audience voted Dr. Craig over Dr. Rosenberg by a count of 1390 to 303.

Among the online viewers Dr. Craig received 734 votes & Dr. Rosenberg received 59 total votes.

Isn't it strange that most people on this board consider WLC a slimy used car salesman and his arguments invalidated? Wouldn't Dr. Rosenberg be able to win this debate easily if WLC's arguments were already debunked???

These voting numbers are not even close, people.
---
God made police so that firefighters could have heroes.
#2Dathrowed1Posted 2/2/2013 10:32:03 PM
Couch Quarterbacking isn't strange
---
sig
#3OzymandiasIVPosted 2/2/2013 10:38:06 PM
By what criteria were the official judges voting? Winning an argument doesn't mean make the argument correct. Perhaps they voted him on style, or persuasiveness, or rhetoric, etc. It doesn't mean he was right, or more right.

Audience and online viewers really don't count, because it's going to be chock full of bias. Just look at the numbers. By the judges, Craig had 2x the votes. Purdue audience, Craig had over 4x the votes. By online viewers, he had 12x the votes. Those are some huge variances.

All this means is that Craig is good at debate. It doesn't mean anything he said is correct.
---
Sucking at something is the first step to becoming sort of good at something.
#4JonWood007Posted 2/2/2013 10:53:38 PM(edited)
He IS a slimy used car salesman basically. His arguments have no substance, he just has a very convincing talking style.

Not to mention a lot of atheists actually suck at debates. I even remember WLC ripping Hitchens apart because he made overly broad statements that were his undoing.

EDIT: watching WLC's opening statement, same canned garbage. A lot of people in the comments reiterated my suggestion, that the atheist argued poorly, lots of people saying they were rude, etc.

EDIT2: Yeah, definitely same canned garbage. I don't claim to know how the universe came into being, I will argue that God may be a possibility, but it's not the only one, and I don't know. It's foolish to claim with certainty.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#5FlashOfLightPosted 2/2/2013 10:55:13 PM
This is a new debate with him, PhiZZiZle? From 2013 or late 2012?
---
And out of this crust, put out your thrust, do what you must, try not to rust, as you turn to dust.
#6JonWood007Posted 2/2/2013 11:15:32 PM(edited)
Looks new.

Man, I'd love for Matt Dillahunty to debate this guy....he's rip him apart =P.

The more I listen to this debate, the more I facepalm. Havent even heard the atheist speak yet, but he couldn't counter those arguments? Seriously?''

Edit: okay, we also need to get Bart Ehrman to also shut this clown down....I can just see it now, WLC: "Scholars agree on this fact about Jesus..." Bart: "Um, I'm a scholar and I don't believe that at all."

EDIT2: LOL he finishes his opening statement by more or less shifting the burden of proof. Wow....

EDIT3: Yeah, the atheist is a bit ad hominem and rude, but he's dead on IMO.....I have to call this as WLC winning for style over substance. Rosenberg seems rather weak in articulating his arguments tbqh.

WLC: Style

Rosenberg: Substance
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#7JonWood007Posted 2/2/2013 11:21:07 PM(edited)
Er...maybe not. The more I listen (I'm updating in real time), the weaker Rosenberg seems....meh. As I said, we need a real lion in there like Matt Dillahunty....Rosenberg's stuttering and going off on tangents, started out strong in calling out WLC's BS, but now he's going on about alpha particles and smoke detectors and crap...meh. He's kind of debating poorly. Very poor debating style, no wonder WLC won.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#8OwnmerjiPosted 2/2/2013 11:44:56 PM
I said the same thing about the presidential debates last year; debates are not decided by votes or polls. They're decided by the arguments made and by how well they were laid out. We don't decide truth by a vote.
#9FlashOfLightPosted 2/3/2013 2:41:29 AM
No disrespect, but that Craig Hazen looks like a Ted Haggard in the making.
---
And out of this crust, put out your thrust, do what you must, try not to rust, as you turn to dust.
#10FlashOfLightPosted 2/3/2013 2:58:37 AM
That's a massive stage there.

Anyway, William Lane Craig, who of course believes in the Big Bang, is trying to defend the christian position from the rationale that the Big Bang took place, but he touches on how the origin of the universe had to be due to either an abstract object, like a number, or an unembodied mind - or person.

Later, Rosenberg accuses Craig of just going for winning debate points, and he says that a debate is not about an adversarial contest for victory.

I would say that most of debates, at least these public ones of this nature, are just that, an ego trip to see who's thought process overwhelm's the opponent's and whose intellectual superiority has proven to be dominant over the inferior challenger's lack of effort, at least one of the debatees can be counted on to display just that by their method of approach into the debate.

Double anyway, I'll continue to watch it, to see where it goes...
---
And out of this crust, put out your thrust, do what you must, try not to rust, as you turn to dust.