Live Online Intelligence Squared debate with RD

[klr]

What's with the cross-gendered talk in this thread - speaking of Dawkins and Grayling as females...?

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 17#p283517

:pissed:

[Animavore]

I dunno. A lot of this lately. Is there something of a joke that I'm not in on?

[klr]

I dunno. A lot of this lately. Is there something of a joke that I'm not in on?

See above ...

[lordpasternack]

I got a distinct feeling someone was a-dicking with the word-filters.... Ahhhhhhh - Rationalia...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I got a distinct feeling someone was a-dicking with the word-filters.... Ahhhhhhh - Rationalia...

[Chinaski]

About 20 Godwin's Law cases in the first 2 theist speeches.

[charlou]

About 20 Godwin's Law cases in the first 2 theist speeches.

Ayep, and they got their cue cards straight from here

Any one of us could have dealt with their bollocks with a similar result.

[Chinaski]

About 20 Godwin's Law cases in the first 2 theist speeches.

Ayep, and they got their cue cards straight from here

Any one of us could have dealt with their bollocks with a similar result.

Did anyone else think that they could've answered questions better than Dawkins and Grayling? I definitely had a few instances :S I think the Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot thing wasn't hammered home well enough, for example. Or what constitutes truth. Or the accusation that they're really agnostics (he should have brought up "teapot agnosticism" or "FSM agnosticism").

[leo-rcc]

Did anyone else think that they could've answered questions better than Dawkins and Grayling? I definitely had a few instances :S I think the Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot thing wasn't hammered home well enough, for example. Or what constitutes truth. Or the accusation that they're really agnostics (he should have brought up "teapot agnosticism" or "FSM agnosticism").

It wasn't relevant to the topic. I think keeping the answers short was the right thing to do, there is a time limit on these things.

[Chinaski]

It would have been a sentence, even a single term.

[klr]

Did anyone else think that they could've answered questions better than Dawkins and Grayling? I definitely had a few instances :S I think the Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot thing wasn't hammered home well enough, for example. Or what constitutes truth. Or the accusation that they're really agnostics (he should have brought up "teapot agnosticism" or "FSM agnosticism").

It wasn't relevant to the topic. I think keeping the answers short was the right thing to do, there is a time limit on these things.

That's the point. I could certainly think of better answers to the Stalin et al question, but it would take time to expound.

[Sisifo]

Actually, I am disappointed. I think it was a very poor debate, with a clown for moderator... Dawkins at his laziest, and the rest, very far from even hitting.

I found more interesting arguments in the audience than in the panel.

[klr]

Actually, I am disappointed. I think it was a very poor debate, with a clown for moderator... Dawkins at his laziest, and the rest, very far from even hitting.

I found more interesting arguments in the audience than in the panel.

I agree that RD can get quite lazy, but he must find all of this very repetitive, and the questions aren't up to much. Why aren't "the opposition" studying his responses from previous debates/interviews, and devising better questions that would demand a more considered response. They never seem to learn.

[Sisifo]

Actually, I am disappointed. I think it was a very poor debate, with a clown for moderator... Dawkins at his laziest, and the rest, very far from even hitting.

I found more interesting arguments in the audience than in the panel.

I agree that RD can get quite lazy, but he must find all of this very repetitive, and the questions aren't up to much. Why aren't "the opposition" studying his responses from previous debates/interviews, and devising better questions that would demand a more considered response. They never seem to learn.

Oh, I understand his attitude perfectly. What I mean is that with such non-rivals, he didn't seem even to put an effort to it. All in all, a bad debate, IMO.

[charlou]

I found more interesting arguments in the audience than in the panel.

Yes, there were a couple of really good points put to the panel which I'd like to have seen get more attention.

I think the thing was more a spectacle than a debate but, like others, was most impressed with Grayling.