pw201 + debate   14

Arguments From My Opponent Believes Something | Slate Star Codex
1. Argument From My Opponent Believes Something, Which Is Kinda Like Believing It On Faith, Which Is Kinda Like Them Being A Religion: “The high priests of the economic orthodoxy take it on faith that anyone who doubts the market is a heretic who must be punished.”
argument  belief  debate  epistemology 
july 2013 by pw201
Stephen Law vs. William Lane Craig Debate: Argument map » » The Polemical MedicThe Polemical Medic
"there’s lots of debate over who won the Law/Craig debate. Instead of joining that, I though I’d do something niftier: I’ve mapped the whole of the debate in argument form, to give a more intuitive way of seeing how all the arguments and objections interact". This is excellent stuff.
religion  theodicy  philosophy  christianity  atheism  debate  william-lane-craig  stephen-law 
february 2012 by pw201
A suggestion for Dr. Dawkins | Alethian Worldview
'Dr. Dawkins should challenge God to a debate. There should be an empty chair on a stage somewhere, and Dawkins should stand up beside it and say, “Well then, I believe that according to William Lane Craig’s rules of engagement, I am now entitled to declare that God is afraid to face me because He knows He’s wrong.”'
funny  religion  richard-dawkins  william-lane-craig  debate  god 
november 2011 by pw201
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig | Richard Dawkins | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Dawkins now says he won't debate with Craig because Craig defends the genocide of the Canaanites in the Old Testament. Craig's views, like those of other evangelicals who share them, are pretty odious, but I don't quite see why that means Dawkins should not debate with Craig: "no platform" principles are there so people can't put forward their odious views, but a debate on the existence of God isn't likely to revolve around what God did to the Canaanites. I think I'd just prefer to say "Craig is a better public speaker, I'd lose" and offer to debate in written form.
richard-dawkins  william-lane-craig  debate  religion  philosophy 
october 2011 by pw201
How to Talk to a Fundamentalist (If You Must)
Former fundie talks about how her uncle convinced her by asking questions, preventing the whole cached thought/semantic stop sign thing, and showing how alternative ways of living can be fulfilling.
fundamentalism  religion  quiverfull  debate 
july 2011 by pw201
Unequally Yoked: Guestblogging Challenge: Take the Ideological Turing Test!
A suggestion: if you want to show that you understand the other side's position, test whether you can be distinguished from a genuine advocate of that position in a suitably anonymous test.
philosophy  debate  turing 
july 2011 by pw201
Kafkatrapping
'One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”'. Eric S. Raymond coins the phrase "kafkatrap" to describe a "heads I win, tails you lose" form of argument which sounds pretty similar to Suber's "logical rudeness".
culture  debate  debunking  philosophy  rhetoric  racism  sexism  kafka  esr 
july 2010 by pw201
Why It's So Tricky for Atheists to Debate with Believers | Belief | AlterNet
Greta Christina lists some "heads I win, tails you lose" arguments against atheism: not criticising serious theologians, fatwa envy ("you wouldn't say that to Muslims"), "atheism is a religion" and so on.
religion  atheism  argument  debate  abiogenesis  greta-christina 
january 2010 by pw201
Mitchell and Webb - Stalin Vs Hitler (arguing the moral toss)
"Welcome to Arguing the Moral Toss". You know who else said that: Hitler!
hitler  stalin  mitchell-and-webb  funny  video  youtube  morality  humour  debate 
november 2009 by pw201
The ad hominem fallacy fallacy
What is, and is not, an ad hominem argument (for example, insults aren't, unless they're part of an argument).
logic  philosophy  argument  language  fallacy  writing  debate  ad-hominem 
november 2009 by pw201
Bart Ehrman and Tom Wright on the Problem of Evil
Bart Ehrman and Tom Wright have a good discussion about the Problem of Evil. The comments on the discussion are pretty good too.
christianity  debate  theology  theodicy  evil  ehrman  n.t.-wright  bart-ehrman 
may 2008 by pw201
Are we better off without religion?-Audio / Video-Podcasts-TimesOnline
Speaking for the motion, "We'd be better off without religion", at a debate held in Westminster on March 27; Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor A.C. Grayling and Christopher Hitchens. Speaking against: Rabbi Julia Neuberger, Professor Roger Scruton and
audio  religion  atheism  dawkins  grayling  hitchens  neuberger  scruton  spivey  bakewell  debate 
march 2007 by pw201

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: