|  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
Alexander
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digitalos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander
According to the people from Notre Dame, it was a requirement for him to participate.
No this isn't true, and in fact the person who wrote that article is one of WLC's colleagues.  I think you should either quote the specific part, or retract that as the atheist networks like to put a spin on that article (if it's the one I am thinking of) and make it sound like it says something it doesn't.

Quote:

Craig took part in the planning from the start. He insisted on particular details of the debate’s format, down to the timing of each speech and the placement of the clocks. (”Probably the most important technique to master,” he has told me about debating, “is managing the clock.”) Craig made sure that he would go first. He also suggested the topic, which bears on the subject of Harris’s latest book, The Moral Landscape.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4486/

It sounds like going first was pretty important. I'll read/respond to the rest tomorrow, gotta go to sleep.

Digitalos
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander
According to the people from Notre Dame, it was a requirement for him to participate.

Quote:

Craig took part in the planning from the start. He insisted on particular details of the debate’s format, down to the timing of each speech and the placement of the clocks. (”Probably the most important technique to master,” he has told me about debating, “is managing the clock.”) Craig made sure that he would go first. He also suggested the topic, which bears on the subject of Harris’s latest book, The Moral Landscape.
You should be more careful with your words, you made it sound like WLC wouldn't take part, if he wasn't allowed to go first.  Which is precisely what atheist sites like to suggest, hence why I was contesting that.

I am sure you don't listen to WLC's podcasts, but if you did he spoke on this a lot, and he mentioned that ND was pretty unprepared for the debate, and they had no idea of timings, clock positions and formats.  He essentially constructed that format for them, Harris was asked to weigh in, but didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander
It sounds like going first was pretty important. I'll read/respond to the rest tomorrow, gotta go to sleep.
I never said it wasn't important, it IS for the PRO speaker.  I'm not sure how to say that any clearer?
neilmeyerza
Reply with quote  #18 
It is a non optional debating convention. The affirmative usually goes first. Sometimes atheist make a big deal of it but in the end I do not think it matters. The audience of college goers have at least a 20 minute attention span. They will not forget what the first person has said when the second guy gets to speak
creator42
Reply with quote  #19 
In both the Hitchens and Harris debates, Craig opens by saying that he intends to defend two contentions of his own invention, one of which is that there are no good arguments for believing that atheism is true, which essentially shifts the burden of proof, challenges his opponent to prove a negative and, with any luck, establishes the rules of the debate in Craig's favour.  In his rebuttle, Dr. Craig points out that his opponent has failed to prove the negative, (no surprise there).  His opponents, at least Harris and Hitchens, instead did what they were prepared to do, make their own arguments by their own terms, rather than waste their time.


Existentialz
Reply with quote  #20 
After reading all of the points addressed in this thread, I think it all comes down to emotionally charged logic in which one might conclude that WLC has been so successful and effective because he usually starts. I think though that if you truly ask yourself that question with a broad objective perspective when its all said and done, that it is certainly not the case.

**Woot first post on here!

silentmatt
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
Originally Posted by creator42
In both the Hitchens and Harris debates, Craig opens by saying that he intends to defend two contentions of his own invention, one of which is that there are no good arguments for believing that atheism is true, which essentially shifts the burden of proof, challenges his opponent to prove a negative and, with any luck, establishes the rules of the debate in Craig's favour.  In his rebuttle, Dr. Craig points out that his opponent has failed to prove the negative, (no surprise there).  His opponents, at least Harris and Hitchens, instead did what they were prepared to do, make their own arguments by their own terms, rather than waste their time.

So it's a waste of time arguing with an opponent's contentions? That just surrenders the field, leaving Craig to establish both that there are no good arguments for atheism, and good arguments for theism.
Duffduff
Reply with quote  #22 
I just asked questions, it is of course the case that he ALMOST EVERY TIME starts first, what about debates in which he didnt start first? Where these good debates for him or not?

Greets

peacerenity
Reply with quote  #23 
Is anyone else reminded of the whole "Han shot first" meme?
expsredemption
Reply with quote  #24 
It is so strange to see the atheists on this site (as atheist tend to claim more knowledge and rationality) throwing fits over subjects of which they have minimal (to none at all) knowledge about.

One would think it wise for the atheists to have a working knowledge of how debates function, how the burden of proof is assessed in debates, etc. when they are so intent on crying about it in such adamant fashion.   I oft find it strange at discovering the atheists seemingly complete lack of knowledge about the historical aspects of the scriptures in relation to historical and literary criticism.  They make so many claims to rationality... and yet have no real understanding of what it is that they claim to be so rational about.

expsredemption
Reply with quote  #25 
The post above also makes me drop my jaw in awe of what seems to be a complete inability to understand and apply context by the atheists.
Pharaoh
Reply with quote  #26 

I think he goes first based on time restraints, as it will work more better to his advantage. Think about it, we've all seen his opening argument. His opening arguments are no less than 20 minutes long, sometimes even longer. If he goes second, he would have to make his case for Christian theism, and then rebut his opponents arguments for atheism (in the "Does God exist" format). That would be at least a 32 minute rebuttal!! If he goes first he can get his lengthy opening argument out of the way, and spend the rest of the night rebutting his opponents fallacious arguments. That is my take on the matter.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.