I haven't seen it, either.  (Who has time for a whole movie?)

But that's a great clip of script and an excellent point that neither debator's mind will likely change, but some in the audience might be swayed. 

By the way, was Nick Naylor a preacher-man?

I've never really thought it about it that way, but it certainly makes sense. 

Thing is, what if you're a real scheister who just happens to be an excellent debator?  You could completely sway an audience just by twisting words around or using theatrics.  Oh wait, that happens all the time in churches, doesn't it?

And politics. 

Glad I could be of assistance. I would gladly help you any day.

 

I also agree with trying to stay on topic better. Deflection is an effective tactic, I think so much so that most people do not consciously know they are doing it, or if they are observing the debate that are consciously unaware it has just taken place.

 

I saw that thread when you started it and I wondered how long it would take for it to stray. You are doing an excellent job trying to keep everyone focused and on topic.

If the conversation naturally strays from the original topic that is okay, the problem is when it gets deflected with the intent to avoid answering the initial topic.

I've made this same observation. I'm glad you brought this up. This is whats going on in many arguments. Many theists continue to post "rebuttals" on youtube even after they've been clearly refuted. They are trying to be the last comments on the main page to make it look like they won...to get the last word in like kids. 

And Hambydammit I haven't read that thread about religion's "contributions" to the world before now. It's fair to say that religion has actually hindered intellectual progress, but yet theists are willing to lie and claim otherwise.

 

You make a very good point. I'm sure that I do some drifting around on my own, but when I see a claim that's easy to attack, I can't help myself.

I'm sure this applies to everyone in some small way, atheist and theist alike. 

 

It's funny that you mentione that, because that is the exact topic I had in mind while I was reading all this!

 

Simmo's thread is a very good example of this, and I'd like to share with you guys what I did. I don't mind that anyone can read this. It's not deceptive in any way. It's just good use of resources.

In that thread, REVLyle had come in and made naked assertions that what I had said about earlier Jesus parallels was false. Ordinarily, I don't bother with that kind of debate, but I felt it would be useful to let simmo see the debate. So, I came up with pages of references and links documenting parallels between Horus and Jesus, as well as a nice article about virgin births pre-Jesus.

As I expected, REVLyle spent a good while attacking everything but my evidence. He attacked my intelligence, my reading comprehension, my cut-and-pasting of information, and the thoroughness of my citations.

He only provided one counter claim, and that was by a theologian with no Egyptology background. He deflected so much away from my point that after a few posts, he was not even responding to my argument. After I pointed this out to him and refused to engage him until he could accurately tell me what my point actually was, he slinked off.

I pointed all of this out in the thread, and simmo was watching, as BGH has said.

Now, I've added a short essay on the formation of the Santa Claus myth at the end of the thread. I've shown how the origins of the Santa myth don't really resemble the jolly old man who lives at the north pole with reindeer and midgets who build toys in a workshop. But, when you combine individual elements from a half a dozen myths, throw in some creative license and a good publisher, and you've got Santa Clause.

So, by debating REVLyle, and letting him hang himself, I've accomplished two purposes. First, I let simmo see the difference between someone arguing and someone else debating. Secondly, I've been able to tie in the Jesus predecessor myths with an analogous example that everyone can understand. REVLyle actually helped my cause, because his whole objection was that none of the earlier myths were very much like the Jesus myth. I conceded his point over and over because it was actually the lynchpin of the premise I was trying to demonstrate!

If you go back and look carefully through that thread, you'll see that I've been setting the whole thing up from the beginning, and that engaging the theist was essentially the coup de grace. He argued my point for me, and then I used what he thought was a victory to demonstrate the ultimate failure of his position.

It was actually dumb luck that a theist came along and did a lot of my dirty work for me, but the pattern ended up exactly the same. Hopefully, it's that much stronger now that the observers can see that the theist in the debate actually proved my point for me.

REVLyle's mind will not be changed, but that's not who the debate was for.

[edit: HERE'S THE THREAD so that you can follow how this evolved to a final point in the last post I made.]

 

...and I totally agree.

I think sometimes atheists could do a better job of this. Granted from time to time we all get caught up in a debate and forget about talking to the 'audience', if we could make a more conscious effort when we recognize this is happening to bring the arguments around to where they speak to the masses instead of the opponent it would greatly help the effect we have.

 

 

I agree that it's sometimes very hard to be mindful of the fact that we have some kind of an audience out there watching our threads

This leads me to reconsider my tactics in another way. It's generally true that you're not going to convert your opponent in a debate and that it's largely for the people observing.

So that leads me to wonder about the effect of insults or just negative vocabulary in rebuttals. From what I have seen, everyone here tends to enter a thread with level language. But as soon as someone makes an ever so slight negative comment about the opposing view, the bashing rapidly multiplies.

 I can sympathize because I do this, too. It's very hard not to get frustrated with someone who just doesn't get it. But when you consider the argument from the mind of the person who doesn't get it, it's the other side that doesn't get it.

When the negativity reaches a point where both sides are loading their posts with comments like "you're being an idiot", or "you just don't have any common sense", or "you are utterly void of reading comprehension", or "you make me cry for humanity" and so on, I think it can reach a point where both sides seem to be acting childish, regardless of any soundness or validity in their arguments.

Some people are more sensitive to emotion and tone than others, and if we have those people in our audience, and if both sides are slinging poo at one another, I think it's possible that it could do some harm.

 

ON THE OTHER HAND:

 

Bashing on someone's repeated inability to grasp a simple logical concept is very fulfilling and satisfying. We can't hope to please everybody, so maybe this site's core demographic is people who like a little dirt in their debates. We certainly don't want this to be a formal atmosphere. That would just be boring.

 

Conclusion I've reached: Bashing and insults are fair game, but should be used advisedly. When you really want to punctuate something, and calling someone an idiot seems like just the thing to do it, I'd say go for it. But perhaps I/we should not overdo it.

It's the quality, not the quantity that matters!

 

There is now at least one smart ass who is tempted to reply, "I disagree. You're an idiot."

 

Archeopteryx - No you are not an idiot - LOL

Overall I agree with your comments, however, there is just something cleansing about a well placed "Fuck you" sometimes. 

FWIW, one of the best things about this site is the support available.  There have been times I have wanted to crawl through my computer and strangle the person at the other end.  When that happens, I know it is time for me to back away and ask for help.  I have pm'd many people on this site asking for assistance and they always come through.  In the end, I calm down so I can think more clearly and the debate is re-focused in the right direction.  It is good to have smart, rational friends.

(Hamby, I have printed your essays, bookmarked the pages and plan to put them to good use.  Thank you for your hard work in compiling this information!) 

I've heard good things about this movie, too.  Guess I should watch it. 

 That's such a good point, that it's not about convincing the person you're debating, but those who are watching.