| Posted 11/18/10 at 11:55 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
I just saw the debate. Without question, Craig, Geivett, and Wolpe won. But they won by doing very little really. All they did was present evidence. And the atheist side totally dodged it. Had they dealt with it, I think they would have done better.
I didn't like how the debate was structured. The other speakers who were not in the debate (like Kaku) were a waste of time and did very little to help the debate. I'm sure they were there to give the "middle" side but it veered the debate in a different direction.
Some thoughts:
I was surprised how good Wolpe did. He's not as nearly studios as Craig or Geivett but he was a great speaker.
Dawkins was easily the most annoying of his team. Every time he spoke he came off as obnoxious.
Craig getting Dawkins on the "why" question - good going  Dawkins certainly looked like a dimwit after that and had to do some damage control apparently.
The theist side obviously controlled the debate.
The speakers who were not involved in the debate - again, just completely useless. I doubt they paid close attention to the speakers anyway (I'm not suprised Shermer and Geivett corrected them).
Dawkins was just looking for audience approval.
Geivett shot that down with ease in his second to the last rebuttal.
|
| Loading... |
