The TV Debate between Kirk Cameron and the Rational Response Squad
Offline [MOD EDIT: Closing this thread due to the fact that the o.p. now thinks he was too harsh in this post, and people are likely to address the first post here without reading the other posts first. This could serve as a waste of time for both the person criticizing this post, and the o.p. who would probably not want to have to apologize over and over. Thanks to the o.p. for coming on this site, and please stay on board. There are other threads on this site about the debate which can serve to continue conversation if necessary, bump the official debate thread]
________________________________________________________________________________
I saw some of this debate on Youtube, and I have to say, the Rational Response Squad didn't do a very good job of tearing those guys apart. No offense, but I wasn't very impressed. You made some of the right arguments, but you worded them poorly and you didn't bring good public speakers. You're speakers were not at all convincing and their voices sounded very shakey and unsure. And the worst thing a good debater does is show emotions or signs of weakness or fear, which I saw plenty of from the Rational Response representatives. When looking at Kirk's face, and his friend's face, rarely did they show any signs of weakness or disbelief. It would have been much better to have kept straight faces, and showed a lot less emotion. Do not squirm in your chair every time the opposition makes an argument. That is a HUGE mistake. It makes it look like the argument must carry some weight because you looked uncomfortable. That greatly weakens you as a debater in the eyes of the audience. Body language is a huge part of public speaking. Only when making your arguments, it would be good to show emtions. It's good to show passion and strength in your arguments. Nothing wrong with that. But do not show emotions when your opposition makes an argument. A straight face is all you need.
So let me re-affirm what I said. When speaking to the public, especially a public you wish to convince or sway the opinions of, you need to speak with a strong assertive and authoritative voice. The 2 people who represented the athiests in the debate were not good speakers. Kirk Cameron on the other hand, and his associate, are obviously professionals in speaking to the public (Kirk being particularily effective as a former TV star on a show which obviously promoted Christianity). They were very good in making their arguments sound authentic and official. Even though I'm sure most intelligent people or current athiests weren't swayed by their talks, the less intelligent and those more biased towards their beliefs in God, would be easily convinced or re-affirmed of their beliefs. They spoke strongly, and it was easy to see they believed in what they were saying. Even though their arguments were pointless, and half of them were blatant lies, that didn't even prove anything about the existence of a God, they actually sounded like they might be true simply by the effectiveness of the speakers. I mean, they essentially only came to the table with arguments against evolution (which of course does not prove the existence of God simply by disproving another theory), but yet they still never once actually confronted the fact that they have no proof of the existence of God besides a very very weak idea that all things must have a creator simply because it's a complex thing or system, such as a painting being drawn by a painter or a system of interactions that occur in nature, or DNA having information etc. etc.... I mean, that's all they had? They tried to say that this PROVE'S God's existence? ... that was their only decent argument and it was pathetic. That should have made things very easy for RRS to win the debate, but instead, it came out looking like a balanced fight with no winners, which is what the host concluded, maybe in the interests of keeping his show on the air cause he didn't want to piss off his creationist viewers....
This was a good opportunity for athiests to really embarrass some creationists on TV in front of millions of people, but instead, it didn't work out that way. Instead, the creationist ideas were validated by RRS's speakers squirming in their chairs while the creationist's arguments were being made. 
Now, I kinda like what this organization is doing. I think it's good that some people out there are trying to shake things up and open some eyes and minds. But if you're going to do it, then you should do it right. Find yourselves a strong public speaker, someone with a powerful voice, and a quick wit who can really debate these creationists. If your speaker is a well known celebrity, then all the better. That's what the creationists have done in getting Kirk Cameron onboard. You don't actually think he's there representing them simply because he's a strong believer do you? I don't really know for sure if that's the case or not, but I'm guessing somebody or some church chose him to represent their opinions to the world and they may even be paying him. Can anyone confirm that? But shit, listen to the guy speak. He sounds like something out of Church Bible Camp Promotional Video. It's like listening to the line "Hi, I'm Troy McClure... you may remember me from such films as...". You know what I'm getting at? He's a professional actor and hence a professional speaker. He sounds official, even when spouting the most ludicrous bullshit. I saw him on Bill O'Reily's show before he went on the air against RRS. And Bill O'Reily, being the creationist that he is, was quite pleased and happy to listen to Kirk's crap. But regardless of that insanity, the fact is, he sounds convincing simply by his voice alone. You need that same power on your side. Not just reason and logic. You brought those two things to the table, but reason and logic rarely work in convincing a creationist. They are more easily swayed by passion and a strong voice. (priests, reverends, etc, all strong public speakers).
Anyway, I don't know if I'm the first person to bring up the public speaker issue, but if I am, please take it to heart. If you guys are really serious about getting people to understand scientific theory and give up their ancient and traditional beliefs, you have to be a lot stronger when standing on the podium. 
Anyway, I'm on your guy's side. Good luck.
Thanks, coach.
you're welcome.
sarcasm aside, are you arguing that your organization did a good job?
He may be wondering why you're coming in so far after the fact to rip on a couple of TV amateurs who took on two guys who do TV for a living.
It's really kind of hard to have a debate when one side (Cameron/Comfort) broke the rules from the get -go.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Firstly,welcome the the forums.
Yes,I think they did a good job. As you point out,they are not professional speakers, and were opposing people who were. In this light,I think they did admirably for their first(?) television appearnace.
True,they might have gotten someone professional to do it.But how easy would it be to find someone who is both a professional debater and extremly well versed in theist arguments,science,and other atheist debate aspects. You can have professionalism or knowledge,it's abit much to ask for both right now.
Other thing-Brian and Kelly have built this site from the ground.Professional or not, to not give them the chance to personally represent what they have done would be insulting. Let's be honest.Like the majority of Americans were going to leave their faith from one tv debate? The very fact that they got atheism on primetime tv is a victory. As for there being no clear winner, I've heard that's more the way the program was editted. Would a American program say 'well the atheists sure beat those silly christians'? They want money, which means they want viewership.The majority of viewers are christian.They must cater to them accordingly.
So,while I agree it could always have been better,I don't feel it was actually bad. They recieved alot of positive feedback from atheists and theists alot,and at least made the effort.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
Hey goon303, welcome to the forums! Please be sure to take a good look around and post often!
Personally, I was very proud of the job Brian and Kelly did in the debate with Comfort/Cameron. From my perspective Brian and Kelly looked comfortable and their delivery was similar to that heard on their radio shows. Now with that being said, I am not very familiar with a debate format or the expected behaviors of people in a debate so I could not draw a comparison between that and their appearance.
As for Comfort/Cameron I saw them as being robotic in their delivery with no personality.... as a matter of fact, I would be confident in saying it was like: recycled mouth garbage.
-Renee
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
So an intelligent organization such as the RRS didn't know they were going up against professional speakers and didn't think to get professional speakers of their own, or at least prepare themselves a lot better?
I might have been harsh and preachy in my first post, but as an athiest, watching that debate was frustrating, I don't care when it happened. I mean, religion is still a big thing in the world after that debate right? lol
So obviously the argument and fight isn't over. There will be future arguments and debates. So my opinion is valid. Next time, be better prepared.
Cameron and Comfort are professional speakers....did they display the proper debate etiquette? And I only ask so that I can better understand acceptable vs unacceptable.
And you all can know this, as of next week I will have time on my hands .... I am going to force myself to watch debates, anyone have any suggestions... do political debates, religious debates and scientific debates hold the same 'rules' ?
-Renee
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Hrm... well, now you guys are being so nice and welcoming to me, I feel like a complete asshole.
Sorry. I get riled up pretty easily. I apologize for my harsh words. I'll try to control myself better.
hehe, you make a good point. No, they did not show proper etiquette by lying etc. But, the problem with television is that even if they were lying, they were so good at it, that most people will believe them. I guess that's probably the most frustrating thing for me when I was watching that. I think our representatives were being good an honest. Much more so than the oppositions.
Hehe, I love it when this happnes.I'm not picking on you at all,it's just so cool when people come here thinking we must be these horrible mean atheist activists,then realise we're actually quite nice and end up apologising.
Everyone has their opinions. In the grand scale of things,one debate was never going to change much.i'm still proud of how they represented.
I hope you'll stay around these forums and get to know us.Maybe at the next debate you can help represent
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
The quip was actually to point out that you were being rude. If I came to meet you where you like to hang out and told you some acquaintainces of yours did a bad job on television that one time ... I'm sure you can see how that might be considered a bit forward. Not that you may or may not have valid points to share, just that your delivery made it difficult for me to rationally evaluate what you were saying. There's a large gap between telling someone how to do something and actually doing something: one is an order of magnitude harder than the other.
To answer your question, though, I'll word this carefully so that I'm properly understood: in my opinion, it was a trap. I never would have taken the debate if it were me, and should Kelly and Brian have asked me, I would have advised them against doing it. They didn't know me then, and I'm not sure they'd even ask me now, so that point is moot. However, I think they did as well as could be expected considering the situation in which they were placed.
Before you accuse me of damning with faint praise, the subtext of what I'm saying is not that they came off poorly. Rather, that those "you must be joking" looks on their faces were honest expressions of dealing with a couple of total lunatics in an already nerve-racking experience. I think that Kirk Cameron and his friend the Coke can scientist looked patently insane. There was nothing for Brian and Kelly to push against, frankly. They didn't even have the opportunity to engage in a substantive argument, because the other side was calm, collected, and using every dirty appeal-to-emotion and argument-from-ignorance trick they had up their slime-ridden sleeves.
Could I have done a better job? Maybe. I've always enjoyed debate, and I've been very successful at it. It's possible that I could have presented a stronger case. But I didn't, and I don't actually presume that I would have, considering I've never done a live televised debate against a couple of marginally sane clowns.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
hehe, well, I was too harsh in my first post. I should have toned it down and made it a heck of a lot shorter. :P And, HisWillness, I apologize. You called me on that.
Actually, I really don't think our guys did all that bad. I did exaggerate. I'm mostly frustrated by the end of the show when the host said it was basically even, or that neither side had made any progress. Ouch... that hurt.
Anyway, my apologies, again.
From what I understand most people felt that Brian and Kelly totally PWNED them. Even Christians were saying the Way of the Fucktard clowns did bad. The deluded ones who fall for his shit are the main ones who feel they won.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
So you see the problem.
It's very frustrating, and I think we all have similar frustrations. To be perfectly honest, being familiar with the entertainment industry, I know why the debate happened:
Exec 1: Did you say she's a stripper?
Exec 2: Yeah. Gargantuan tits.
Exec 1: And Kirk Cameron?
Exec 2: Wonderbread in human form.
Exec 1: Alright, put it on. The ratings are going to be ridiculous. Get some offers from pharmaceutical companies first - this is going to drive the blue hairs crazy. I want them watching drug commercials. This is going to be the easiest money I ever made.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yes, I was rude. I apologize. And yes, I observed the same problems with the debate as you. Which made it all the more frustrating to watch, and which is probably why I am misdirecting my frustration and disappointment. You're definately right about it being a trap. I mean, if athiests really wanted to present an argument on evolution, we'd probably need a lot more than 80 minutes to prove our case.
There's no way someone's going to be on television wanting a job and take a side on that one. If Kirk Cameron had bowed down to Brian and said, "You're right! I've been such a fool!" the host still would have called it a tie.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Probably, and it's understandable, so no need to apologize. Welcome to the forums! You'll find there are lots of fun things to discuss and new ways to get into interesting arguments.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Here's the problem in any debate.
Most of your viewers (humans in general) lack critical thinking skills. The wider the audience (Network TV) and/or the less educated they may happen to be, the more this is true.
Because of this humans are susceptible to "poor ideas" as long as they are sold well. This is a consumerist society we live in. Where can you go where something is not directly marketed to you in some form or other? The lack of critical thinking skills inhibits the ability of most humans to differentiate the actual content in a debate from successful salesmanship and/or persuasive languange.
YOu don't have to look too far to define what our basic human needs are (Maslow could be a start). Discovering ways to appeal or exploit those needs is what marketing is all about. The religious have little else. However, appeals to emotion, we find, are most often far more successful than any appeal to reason.
The WOTM are idiots but they could have debated Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers on a Science topic and if they used all the right catch phrases, appeals to emotion and good debating (dodging) skills, a large majority of viewers would probably think they had at least some success.
It's hard to express in words how sad this is, but I think it's probably true.
I thought Kelly and Brian did very well against the Banana twins (even in the heavily edited toward the WOTM version) that was shown on TV, but I tend to examine the content of an argument rather than the dog and pony show. And I tend to discount the arguments of those who are in "Marketing" for a living, especially when they are "at" work.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Update I have originally requested a link to the vid I have found it here it is on google video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1229854964003619354&q=source:009577603118854244189&hl=pl
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6382436755066123640&ei=&hl=pl
Warning I’m not a native English speaker.
http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download
...You were there in the room, weren't you, Will?
I suspected there was a mole at the table when I was having that conversation...
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
It is easy to see that Brian and Kelly pwned Ray and Kirk. They always had logical concise answers to the questions and even though they had a few nerves during the debate, they easily made the most logical arguments. According to your message, you only saw some of the debate. I would like to recommend that you go back to Youtube and watch all of the debate. I have watched it several times and I am still impressed by Brian and Kelly's performance. Remember that Brian and Kelly used logic and reason while Kirk and Ray only had their book.
Trillian: No... just very, very improbable!
-The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy