I listened to both of the debates you had listed last night and thought that the William Craig vs Ahmed showed how talking a lot, appealing to emotion (especially in his conclusion), and giant logical jumps in reason (Universe supports life, therefore there's a god) can be used to win a debate.  By win the debate I of course mean made a better case.  I think it's evident that neither side managed to sway the position of the other.

I also liked how he failed (If I remember correctly) to answer Ahmed's question about whether the debate was a waste of time.

Craig of course tried to put the burden of proof on Atheism too. (I don't think Ahmed points out how atheism is NOT the conviction that there is definitely no god)

I plan on listening to a lot of these debates to help my own rhetoric/speaking skills when debating others about religion.

Do you see a Donkey?

I know I've heard him say that. Although frankly, when the man speaks for any length of time, my reaction goes from confusion to exhaustion pretty quickly. It's just too much insane to hear all at once.

I agree. Make it as simple for the audience as possible. That's why I like Ahmed's analogies (e.g. the thermometer analogy, the coin analogy (which made me chuckle), the donkey analogy), which nicely get his point across. Easy to understand by anyone.

WLC tends to continually cite scholars, philosophers, and other writers which the audience cannot confirm there and then, so he gives the impression that most people agree with him. For example him using Martin Reese to bolster his first-cause argument. What he doesn't tell you however is why Martin Reese does not think this entails that a god must exist.

Another example is the resurrection of Jesus where he states his view is the majority view amongst scholars, however, even if most scholars accept the facts he outlines (empty tomb, post-death appearances, and subsequent belief in his resurrection) they do not accept a supernatural explanation (which cannot be confirmed). Any natural explanation--known or unknown--is far more plausible than a supernatural one (which relies on the existence of the supernatural and god to begin with). And, like Ahmed said in the Habermas debate, once you allow supernatural explanations, you have no way to say which is more likely to be true, so you shoot yourself in the foot (e.g. if we're to suspend belief in bodies rising after three days, why not suspend belief in mass-hilucinations? If you cannot answer that then your argument doesn't hold.)

It's extremely useful specifically identify each argument by number, as well as numbering each premise within the argument. Craig does this very well. Compare that to someone like Hitchens (who he debated the other day, with most saying WLC win by a mile) who tends to build his argument without such a linear form, so, even if it is a stronger argument/case, it seems less organised and therefore harder to grasp.

Oh, he's the king of that technique. Dinesh D'Souza must have learned from the master, because he does that all the time.

The thing is, they understand their audience better. The rationalist (if s/he isn't used to debate) will go into a debate honestly believing that it's about the arguments. That's like believing the music industry is about rewarding musical talent. While you might want to believe that's true on some level, you're fooling yourself.

So the rationalist is at a disadvantage in a debate, which seems counter-intuitive. But the debate is for the audience. I've done debates where as soon as I hear one appeal to emotion, it's on. Straw men? I have a hundred of those ready to go.

Again, to a rationalist, those aren't fair fights. But why would someone with an irrational point of view attempt a "fair fight" with a rationalist? That wouldn't benefit them. So using irrational techniques is just playing the game, as far as I can see. Better than that, making fun of the use of appeals to emotion can be very effective.

I've never understood why people seem to have such a hard time debating these idiots. You know going in what you're going to be dealing with, and how the debate will be considered a win or a fail. Therefore you go in and do exactly the same thing the opposition does. Make up strawmen that would take an hour for the opposition to point out as strawmen, and rip them apart. You will not be defeated, it would take all of the oppositions time just to explain how you're wrong, let alone why. Use emotion, use idiocy, own the hell out of them on their own home field. Intellectual debates are for a written forum, where there is time and ability to bring out all sides of all arguments and get references to back them up. TV is a matter of hitting fast and hard, and doing so better than the opponent. People have to stop trying so hard, and just nuke the shit out of these fools.

Rhetoric is what you see in these "debates". Which is an art, not a science and is based only on persuasion rather than facts.

That makes them basically unwinnable short of mocking the other person openly after using their own arguments against them, rather than actively countering them.

It would be a lot easier for a valid debate if they just set formal rules on the grounds of the argument, and are required to substantiate evidence for every statement made that could be considered valid scientific sources.

Of course, that already happens. That is why we have peer-reviewed journals in the scientific community. Rather than accepting that, they try and make their own rules for the arguments so they don't have to rely on useless things like "facts" or "reality".

This one?:

lol

Yeah the first is a direct link to the mp3 file and the second is a link to a web page containing two mp3 files.

Hamby beat you to it: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17302

It's a great video, as are the all his others.