Ugh. He's so abrasive. Good luck with that. Humble suggestion: keep the debate to one focused topic. Like, say, morality. Or the origin of the universe. Or finding purpose with or without religion. I've grown tired of watching debates, because they always splinter off into so many sub-topics that little of substance is actually discussed.
An article in Newsweek said he has a new book coming out (or was it an old Newsweek article?) claiming, among other things, that believers have better sex too. Score one for the believers?
You should come up with your own voice to use when mocking your opponent like D'Souza does. Watch any debate of his. He talks in a "dumb" voice when quoting his opponents. Also, brush up on any history you may be forgetful on. He likes to spin that.
"claiming, among other things, that believers have better sex too."
When christians try to defend their religion by appealing to secular values -- believers allegedly copulate better, have happier marriages, enjoy better health, etc. -- then they've pretty much capitulated to a humanistic world view. Premodern christians, by contrast, framed their beliefs as an emergency procedure to keep their god from zapping us in the afterlife; the idea that christians should enjoy life in this world would have struck them as perverse and sinful.
He does try to use a funny, moking tone when repeating the opponent's arguments. At least, you should call him out on it, it's an obvious tactic to appeal to emotion & make the opponent's arguments sound ridiculous. History is the only thing D'Souza has, as far as philosophy & certainly the bible, John, you outclass that clown. Should be intersting!
It is worth watching his previous debates, if you have not done so already, to see what common arguments and tactics he uses. He seems to just about always go for the "order in the universe makes sense only if a god exists" argument and for the moral argument for god's existence as well. Gotta come prepared with comebacks for those ones. He trips up a lot of opponents by quickly running through those arguments, and he has had a lot of practice polishing his slick presentation of them.
Good luck and congratulations on getting this done!
I was doing it in a joking matter and I apolgized. It doesn't affect me directly but you are refering to someone who is respected as a clown. He has done very well for himself and is far from being a clown.
13 comments:
Ugh. He's so abrasive. Good luck with that. Humble suggestion: keep the debate to one focused topic. Like, say, morality. Or the origin of the universe. Or finding purpose with or without religion. I've grown tired of watching debates, because they always splinter off into so many sub-topics that little of substance is actually discussed.
An article in Newsweek said he has a new book coming out (or was it an old Newsweek article?) claiming, among other things, that believers have better sex too. Score one for the believers?
You should come up with your own voice to use when mocking your opponent like D'Souza does. Watch any debate of his. He talks in a "dumb" voice when quoting his opponents. Also, brush up on any history you may be forgetful on. He likes to spin that.
Awesome!
Can't wait to check that out ;o)
Please ensure the video is available online for anyone who doesn't live close enough to make it in person.
(Also, you might considering sneaking a challenge in to John W. Loftus as one of his former students in your remarks somewhere... maybe in closing ;)
Do your thing!
"claiming, among other things, that believers have better sex too."
When christians try to defend their religion by appealing to secular values -- believers allegedly copulate better, have happier marriages, enjoy better health, etc. -- then they've pretty much capitulated to a humanistic world view. Premodern christians, by contrast, framed their beliefs as an emergency procedure to keep their god from zapping us in the afterlife; the idea that christians should enjoy life in this world would have struck them as perverse and sinful.
He does try to use a funny, moking tone when repeating the opponent's arguments. At least, you should call him out on it, it's an obvious tactic to appeal to emotion & make the opponent's arguments sound ridiculous. History is the only thing D'Souza has, as far as philosophy & certainly the bible, John, you outclass that clown. Should be intersting!
It is worth watching his previous debates, if you have not done so already, to see what common arguments and tactics he uses. He seems to just about always go for the "order in the universe makes sense only if a god exists" argument and for the moral argument for god's existence as well. Gotta come prepared with comebacks for those ones. He trips up a lot of opponents by quickly running through those arguments, and he has had a lot of practice polishing his slick presentation of them.
Good luck and congratulations on getting this done!
Brian
History is the only thing D'Souza has, as far as philosophy & certainly the bible, John, you outclass that clown. Should be intersting!
Gung Fu
Why such hostility? I've grown quite tired of your insults..
How does insulting D'Souza affect you? How have I insulted you at all? Weren't you the one threatening violence?
I just heard from Dinesh and he has agreed to debate me. Now it's back to the organizers to put it together.
I was doing it in a joking matter and I apolgized. It doesn't affect me directly but you are refering to someone who is respected as a clown. He has done very well for himself and is far from being a clown.
Why is it ok for you to denegrate Dawkins, but I can't do it to D'Souza?
"Why is it ok for you to denegrate Dawkins, but I can't do it to D'Souza?"
Did I call him a clown?
Post a Comment