Moore vs. Hovind at Detroit, MI

ROFLMAO!

 

Richard Spencer vs. Scott Kelley on The Debate Hour Podcast

This debate had some vigorous back-and-forth, but mostly over issues which I consider tangential to the crux of the matter, that is, how widely ought we rationalists draw our circle of moral concern? Do cows and pigs count merely because they have the capacity to suffer? What about fowl? Fish? Crustaceans? If the capacity to suffer is the main issue, are humanely euthanized animals a reasonable answer to the moral concerns at hand? Alas, few of these questions were addressed ion any depth.

Reginald Finley, Sarah Austin, and Scott Horton on The Debate Hour Podcast

The choice and framing of the topic were good, but alas, this episode of the debate hour does not have much in the way of substantive debate. Horton is quite obviously widely read and makes quite a few interesting and realistic points about the impracticality of certain wars of liberation, but there is no one on this show attempting to enumerate and balance all of the costs and benefits. I did not hear one mention of the long-term virtues of constitutional self-rule as opposed to dictatorship, which seems to me a bit of a crucial point.

 

 

Sent to you by tergiversant via Google Reader:

 

 

The Iraq War: Worth the Cost? - Scott Horton

via The Debate Hour Podcast on 2/8/07

Scott Horton of antiwar.com appears to talk about what's wrong with this war and the US administration. Sarah Austin sits in as my co-host since we could not get a Pro-War activist to appear. Enjoy, or not. :)

 

 

Things you can do from here:

• Subscribe to The Debate Hour Podcast using Google Reader
• Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites

 

 

Roughgarden vs. Wright on BhTV

Now this is what I'm talking about when I argue that we must to "teach the controvery" (all of them, really) when we present the essentials of biological science to those in undergraduate programs.

In this diavlog, Roughgarden puts Wright on the defensive regarding selfish genes, sexual selection, and a number of other topics, including the joys of mating versus childrearing.  She repeatedly upbraids those who do research without first clearly defining their alternative hypotheses.  Wright, for his part, puts up a fairly good defense for someone who doesn't have a Ph.D.  in biology.

Wood vs. Gulam in Romulus, MI

Normally, I have some sense of whom I consider to be "on my side" in a debate, but this debate was between someone who claims that Jesus died for only three days and someone who claims taht Jesus somehow survived crucifixion.  The apriori probabilites of each event seems relatively low, since we only know of one person who allegedly survived crucifixion (from Flavius Josephus) and we have relatively few historically verifiable stories of reainmated corpses, despite a recent resurgance in the popularity of zombie flicks.

Oddly enough, I found that the Muslim debater was making arguments which I am used to hearing from skeptics such as Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, and Robert Price.  Part of his argument is essentially that since the gospel accounts are inconsistent on key points, we cannot trust them on their crucifixion accounts.

Of course, the Christian has the better arguments here, because pretty much all of the accounts which might possibly be construed as historical narratives are on his side.  That said, he doesn't do nearly so well as one might expect given such an overwhelming advantage.  

Hitchens vs. Craig in Los Angeles, CA

About a score of freethinkers from all around OKC converged on Trinity Baptist Church in Norman, OK for this event.  Good times were had by all on hand, so far as I could see. Theists and atheists sat cheek by jowl, and were generally polite and respectful each to another. It was quite a fine and rare sight to behold.

---

Craig lead with his usual five arguments

1. Cosmological (Kalam)
2. Teleological (Paley/Ross)
3. Moral argument (Lewis)
4. Tomb / Epiphanies / Conversion (Habermas)
5. Properly basic beliefs (Plantinga)

None of these arguments are at all novel, and Craig makes most of them in mostly the same way in most of his debates, so Hitchens had absolutely no excuse for failing to directly address at least a few of them, even if philosophy is not exactly his bag.

Hitch leads with a bit of methodological criticism which sounds fairly ad homish, and then pretty much just goes off on the history of the Xn church and its various abuses of power and privilege. He also makes the argument that it seems absurd to expect a revelatory deity to only reveal Himself in to a few illiterate peasants in ancient Palestine relatively late in human history. Surely, it is absurd, but Hitchens pretty much leaves the details as a proof for the reader.

In the rebuttals, things go from bad to worse, as Craig pretty much refutes Hitch's main points
and repeatedly pounds him for failing to return the favor. At first, this is just unfair, since no one should have to rebut during their own opening, but eventually the accusation sticks and goes on to become the overarching motif of the debate. Hitchens increasingly rambles and mumbles, and one begins to fear the debate may become too one-sided to prove illuminating to all concerned.

Mercifully, though, someone at BIOLA decided beforehand to put aside time for cross-examination, and that is when things finally got interesting. Craig conceded the possibility of allegorical layering in the Matthean gospel, as well as giving away a few other tidbits to the schools of higher criticism. It was particularly gratifying to see these two stumping each other and pausing to gather their thoughts.

All things considered, this debate was worth attending, if only for the almost perfect ying/yang combination of these two particular speakers. I'd watch it again, once it hits the internets.  Meanwhile, I can take out my frustration at Hitchens by watching this video over and over.

• Unbeliever rating: 2.5
  
  
• Believer rating: 4.5
  
  
• Overall rating: 3.5
  

Law vs. Talbot in Oxford, UK

This debate between Stephen Law and  Marianne Talbot was unlike most of those that I've heard lately.  Both debaters were quite cordial and clearly philosophically sophisticated, which makes for a significantly higher level of listening than I am used to from such events.  This is a bit ironic here, because they both agreed to use Dawkins (deliberately unsophisticated) anti-theistic book as a jumping off point. 

Marianne Talbot outlines a distinctly unusual God hypothesis and gives a few reasons for her lack of unbelief, from the perspective of a philosopher who has read a bit too much Berkeley. Money quote from the other side, "Your idea of God is a bit different..."

Stephen Law focuses primarily on the evidential argument from evil, and goes on to sublimely and rather ingeniously flip around all the standard theodicies in order to defend an  hypothetical supremely evil and powerful deity.  I'm definitely adding this guy to my reading list, and to my anti-W.L.C. debater dream team.

This debate would have been a rare 5-star event, but for the fact that Talbot's argument for god cannot seem to be recast into a deductively valid form.  If someone can correct me on this, I'd be more than happy to accept the reproof.

Unbeliever rating: 5.0 stars

Believer rating 4.0 stars

Overall rating: 4.5 stars