|
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
 Posted - 12/03/2004 : 20:47:12
|
When my website is up and running again like I want it to be, I want to write a long essay or paper on how to beat Dr. Hovind in a debate. I don't think it's really too hard to do the more I watch his debates. For those of you that don't know, I own his debates and two copies of his seminars, plus some old tapes of his that I am sure he wouldn't want people to know of (the typical creationist lie about bullfrog DNA) and have heard him on IG's programs many times get pwned (owned).
Anyhow, I am wondering if anyone thinks this is a good idea (hopefully people who debate him in the future can be forewarned of his deceitful tactics) and also will show readers that Dr. Hovind lies which I think is one of the things one must bring up in a debate against him - take away his credibility.
I have a ton of ideas, just trying to gather these thoughts.
tk
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 12/04/2004 : 00:48:46 [Permalink]
|
I would love to get Hovind into a written debate. A format he will not allow because he knows he would be demolished. Beyond that, I don't see the point of even debating the subject in front of an audience unless it is a school board or a state considering forcing some form of creationism into science classrooms or screwing around with science text books. Thing about it is, there is no debate. Evolution happens. And by agreeing to argue with some creationist, live and in a public forum, allows the best debater the chance to win. It becomes a debating contest. Plus, it legitimizes creationism even by acknowledging it as a subject worthy of debate. I wouldn't give Hovind, Gish or any of the other nitwits/liars (you choose) who happen to be good talkers the chance to do their thing…
I don't mind it here on the site or in this kind of format or in writing in general. There is entertainment value and a chance I might actually learn something. Helps to keep me current on the state of the science. The creationist arguments, however, bore the crap out of me…
I just read one of Dave's links: Is Debating Creationists a Good Idea. Could be I am getting a bit grumpy. I dunno… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 01:39:25 [Permalink]
|
The truncheon as a debating tool comes to mind...
Dr? Hovind's audencies are usually filled with his fans, rather like teeny-boppers attracted to a pop star. For the most part, he preaches to the choir while you try to refute a cloud of crap.
I too, would love to get his lying ass in a written venue, but as Kil has stated, it just ain't on.
But, if I were to go the jawbone route, I think I'd develop a version of the Gish Gallop and machine-gun him fast enough that he's be hard pressed to keep up. Put him on the defensive right away. I'd also work out various straw men to demolish here and there, as does he: "Croc from a rock," and so forth.
In short, failing the truncheon, use his own tactics but better. The only way to beat these clowns is to give them the same mauling they give their opponents. Never forget: they are virtually professional debaters and it's damned hard to beat a pro.
That's the probelm, you know; evolution debaters are just, plain too nice about it, too concentrated upon their science, facts, and logic. Hovind et al have no such restraints.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 05:13:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
In short, failing the truncheon, use his own tactics but better. The only way to beat these clowns is to give them the same mauling they give their opponents. Never forget: they are virtually professional debaters and it's damned hard to beat a pro.
Indeed.
I wrote about this on Skeptic Times, but it was deleted. Mainly because it was criticism of Hovind.
When the motor-mouth Hovind starts spewing unsupported assumptions and statements (true or false, though mostly false), there is no chance in hell an opponent can argue against it. It takes so much more time to explain why a statement is false that it takes to make it. Just look at Peptide's debunking of jimi's post in the debate at Skeptic Times.
Hovind is a master of rhetorics, and rhetorics isn't about telling the truth, it's about making the audience believe you are right by appealing to emotion. Telling the truth is of secondary importance.
In that way, rhetoric is a double-edged sword: It can be used for good and for evil. In Hovind's case...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/04/2004 : 05:44:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Plus, it legitimizes creationism even by acknowledging it as a subject worthy of debate.
Yes, exactly. "Teach the controvesy."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 12/04/2004 05:45:00 |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 11:03:38 [Permalink]
|
I disagree with y'all and agree with Massimo Pigliucci and Reggie of IG on this one.
By not addressing Creationists publicly, they are going to go back to their audiences and claim that evolutionists are spineless. This tactic works better than you think. By avoiding them, you won't get anywhere.
However, there are ways you can beat Creationists at their own "game." I've noticed, for example, that Hovind relies on his public speaking ability and humor to win. Of course anyone clever enough will know that you can use humor and good public speaking to beat them back.
And by the way, in Hovind vs. Pigliucci that Hovind sells, it was obvious that Pigliucci won that debate because he beat Hovind at his own game.
tk |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 11:30:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tkster
I disagree with y'all and agree with Massimo Pigliucci and Reggie of IG on this one.
By not addressing Creationists publicly, they are going to go back to their audiences and claim that evolutionists are spineless. This tactic works better than you think. By avoiding them, you won't get anywhere.
However, there are ways you can beat Creationists at their own "game." I've noticed, for example, that Hovind relies on his public speaking ability and humor to win. Of course anyone clever enough will know that you can use humor and good public speaking to beat them back.
And by the way, in Hovind vs. Pigliucci that Hovind sells, it was obvious that Pigliucci won that debate because he beat Hovind at his own game.
tk
I agree that by ignoring them you're only feeding their wild imaginations. But the problem is (as it's been stated before) that sometimes, it's not so easy to beat them in their own field. Like someone else said, it's easier to make up things than to explain why they're wrong. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 11:48:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
tk:
And by the way, in Hovind vs. Pigliucci that Hovind sells, it was obvious that Pigliucci won that debate because he beat Hovind at his own game.
Would Hovind be selling that debate if it was so obvious? Sure, I know that Hovind is full of crap, and I have not seen a debate of his that he has actually won on the facts of the debate. But to those who have no clue, who won? Apparently, Hovind thinks he did.
I'm going to amend what I said earlier in this thread. Under strict conditions that would prevent the “Gish Gallup” that Hovind has perfected, and a debate the focuses on the legitimacy of creationism rather than evolution, I could be ok with a live debate. Both of these suggestions were made by Eugenie Scott Here: Debates and the Globetrotters, again, in a link supplied by Dave…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 11:53:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And by the way, in Hovind vs. Pigliucci that Hovind sells, it was obvious that Pigliucci won that debate because he beat Hovind at his own game.
You have to realize, a few weeks ago you would have said the exact opposite. I agree, I think Pigliucci won, but I realize that I have a very strong bias towards evolution (although this bias is because of evidence...). You, as we all do, share this bias, and we have to realize that. If a debate could be won by facts, Pigliucci sure did win. But that isn't the point of a debate. A debate is on how many people can you convince that you are right. Whether you are actually right or wrong doesn't matter. In this sense, Hovind won. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2004 : 12:35:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
And by the way, in Hovind vs. Pigliucci that Hovind sells, it was obvious that Pigliucci won that debate because he beat Hovind at his own game.
You have to realize, a few weeks ago you would have said the exact opposite. I agree, I think Pigliucci won, but I realize that I have a very strong bias towards evolution (although this bias is because of evidence...). You, as we all do, share this bias, and we have to realize that. If a debate could be won by facts, Pigliucci sure did win. But that isn't the point of a debate. A debate is on how many people can you convince that you are right. Whether you are actually right or wrong doesn't matter. In this sense, Hovind won.
Actually no. I told my dad about that debate four months ago and mentioned to my dad that Hovind got beat at his own game. The debate is quite obvious even to the audience who won. Pigliucci ended up getting Hovind to lose it, and that's what Hovind tends to be the expert at.
tk |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
