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

Dawkins loses debate against Rowan Williams

#21Dathrowed1Posted 2/4/2013 7:45:05 AM
I always thought these debates were how much you persuaded and convinced your targeted audience. It's not about being right or wrong, you have to be good at tickling the ears of your audience.

I remember a debate about whether College Football should be banned and the guys who said it should have won because they persuaded a lot of audience to change their minds on the subject.
---
sig
#22CdrRoguePosted 2/4/2013 7:57:57 AM
No debate audience member has ever changed their mind on a religious issue due to what somebody said in a debate. They just go there to cheer on their hero.

Formal debates (turn-based) are the worst possible ways to have a discussion. The worst.
#23BashyMcFetusPosted 2/4/2013 8:06:17 AM
Ownmerji posted...
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.

Debates certainly are decided by vote. Debating is about proving that you can argue your position better than your opponent can argue theirs. It's not about deciding or deducing the truth.
---
By Evolution, I mean Evolution. As in "I look different from my parents because of evolution" ~OrangeWizard
#24JonWood007Posted 2/4/2013 9:39:01 AM
CdrRogue posted...
No debate audience member has ever changed their mind on a religious issue due to what somebody said in a debate. They just go there to cheer on their hero.

Formal debates (turn-based) are the worst possible ways to have a discussion. The worst.


True. Honestly, I don't see how Williams won. Dawkins made a really strong case considering the topic at hand (and I don't always say that when it comes to atheists arguing this topic...some do a very poor job). Hence, I believe the audience was biased. I admit, I'm biased too, but still.
---
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
#25LunarAmbiencePosted 2/4/2013 10:43:11 AM
From: BashyMcFetus | #023
Ownmerji posted...
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.

Debates certainly are decided by vote. Debating is about proving that you can argue your position better than your opponent can argue theirs. It's not about deciding or deducing the truth.

And you think a vote is an objective way of measuring this instead of direct measurement of style, truth, validity, and soundness of the arguments? On the issue of religion, I think there's a certain amount of bias on both sides of this debate.
---
The above is both true and false.
#26kozlo100Posted 2/4/2013 10:49:11 AM
The fact that Dawkins would try to make such an argument is part of why it annoys me that he is so often touted as the public face of atheism.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#27DoGCyNPosted 2/4/2013 11:56:47 AM
I'm just now starting to watch the debate...and there is one BIG thing bugging me so far.

Whoever keeps clapping with the mic in his hand needs to be tackled.
---
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
#28Dathrowed1Posted 2/4/2013 2:22:47 PM(edited)
JonWood007 posted...
CdrRogue posted...
No debate audience member has ever changed their mind on a religious issue due to what somebody said in a debate. They just go there to cheer on their hero.

Formal debates (turn-based) are the worst possible ways to have a discussion. The worst.


True. Honestly, I don't see how Williams won. Dawkins made a really strong case considering the topic at hand (and I don't always say that when it comes to atheists arguing this topic...some do a very poor job). Hence, I believe the audience was biased. I admit, I'm biased too, but still.


well it would have still amounted to 324 vs. 137

LunarAmbience posted...
And you think a vote is an objective way of measuring this instead of direct measurement of style, truth, validity, and soundness of the arguments? On the issue of religion, I think there's a certain amount of bias on both sides of this debate.


No, I think he was just commenting that the system is like the slam dunk contest
---
sig
#29BashyMcFetusPosted 2/4/2013 3:28:57 PM
LunarAmbience posted...
And you think a vote is an objective way of measuring this instead of direct measurement of style, truth, validity, and soundness of the arguments?

I don't think there is an objective way of measuring style. Validity and soundness of your argument only matter if your opponent calls you on it.
---
By Evolution, I mean Evolution. As in "I look different from my parents because of evolution" ~OrangeWizard
#30OwnmerjiPosted 2/4/2013 10:06:49 PM
From: BashyMcFetus | #023
Ownmerji posted...
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.

Debates certainly are decided by vote. Debating is about proving that you can argue your position better than your opponent can argue theirs. It's not about deciding or deducing the truth.


Debates are about the soundness of the arguments used to back up the debater's claims. Anything less than that and I can just fill the audience with my friends or people I've bribed and win every debate. It's absurd.