• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

best atheist debaters

Thank you for all the names. Every atheist that I can listen to with just a little different take on things helps me understand it more.
 
Dawkinks simply isn't articulate. He tends to be appalled at some of the things that his opponents say and tends to take too long to make decisions about what he's going to do or say. He always seems nervous and anxious when he's debating someone and it hurt his arguments.

Hitchens is always intoxicated and I have trouble understanding him. He also tends to rant on about various subjects totally losing his audience.

Randi seems to be more concerned with psychics and the sort and doesn't generally debate for Atheism. When he does he's also as someone else mentioned, too nice and doesn't take the offense often in live debates.

Harris is probably the best bet but his arguments simply aren't that great either(In live debates from what I've seen). Not only that but from what I've seen he also tends to be slow to react as well and doesn't follow points.
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Dawkinks simply isn't articulate. He tends to be appalled at some of the things that his opponents say and tends to take too long to make decisions about what he's going to do or say. He always seems nervous and anxious when he's debating someone and it hurt his arguments.

Hitchens is always intoxicated and I have trouble understanding him. He also tends to rant on about various subjects totally losing his audience.

Randi seems to be more concerned with psychics and the sort and doesn't generally debate for Atheism. When he does he's also as someone else mentioned, too nice and doesn't take the offense often in live debates.

Harris is probably the best bet but his arguments simply aren't that great either(In live debates from what I've seen). Not only that but from what I've seen he also tends to be slow to react as well and doesn't follow points.
Click to expand...

I think you are way overstating the faults of these people. Don't get me wrong, Hitchens drinks like a fish but I've never failed to understand him.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I think you are way overstating the faults of these people. Don't get me wrong, Hitchens drinks like a fish but I've never failed to understand him.
Click to expand...

That's you. Most people probably don't understand him though. His speech is usually slurred and he has a tendency to rant.

EvilSmurf said:
When Hitchens is sober, there's few who can even tie him when they lock horns.
Click to expand...

I think he does better when he's intoxicated. Sort of like Wong Fei Hung of debating.
 
I've liked micheal shermer. He has a relaxed style that doesn't come off condecending and rude, but he doesn't allow people to slip in little sly questions that get unanswered. He knows his subject well and knows not to over sell his case.

At actual debating I think Richard Dawkins sucks you can him and he gets , and it's easy to write off hitchens as the rude drunk that he is (even if he's right).

I really like Shermer's "Just the facts ma'am" style.
 
For me, assuming he's not just had a liquid lunch, I find Hitchens often has an almost too casual conversational style with a tendency to go off in tangents so you forget the point he was trying to make or the question he was supposed to be addressing.
 
As regards Randi being too nice: I find it amusing that that's the general view here in light of woos always complaining about "angry" skeptics with Randi as Exhibit A. Shrinking violets.
 
hgc said:
Not really an atheist/theist debate, but here's Hitchens in top form, and apparently sober, pissing on the memory of Jerry Falwell on Hannity & Colmes.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/17/hitchens-brutally-eulogizes-falwell-on-hannity-colmes/

It's hilarious to see him rip these guys up.
Click to expand...


Hannity claims that one should not criticize someone after they have died because their family who might not have done anything wrong would be offended by it? Does he extend these same codes of conduct to terrorists or dictators who have recently died? Does he refrain from saying what they are because he is worried their families might be offended?
 
Dustin Kesselberg said:
Hannity claims that one should not criticize someone after they have died because their family who might not have done anything wrong would be offended by it? Does he extend these same codes of conduct to terrorists or dictators who have recently died? Does he refrain from saying what they are because he is worried their families might be offended?
Click to expand...


I see no point in disputing Hannity on a logical basis. His only interest is in trying to protect the notions of theocracy, authoritarianism, racism and gay-bashing that Falwell so fervently advanced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom