Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Erik Dickerson vs. Kerrigan Skelly

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 2:11:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's a pretty interesting debate between an athiest vs. christian. It's a long debate.

My thoughts on it:

Kerrigan Skelly was obviously a better speaker and came up as more "likeable" but that's mainly due to his experience as a radio speaker. Erik Dickerson had no shot in that regard because he had poor speaking experience and came off as very nervous making his position look weaker. And of this is because Erik Dickerson was just some guy with a youtube account. In his youtube account, he never even spoke but would use a robotic voice, thus demonstrating his uncomfortably with public speaking. The radio host audience probably knew this beforehand, and were looking for a strawman atheist to win against.

Erik Dickerson main obvious weakness was his understanding of moral philosophy, which Kerrigan Skelly could easily exploit. With that said, Kerrigan Skelly could not really explain why morality explains God's existance. Erik Dickerson made the argument that believing knowing the explanation was not an indication of whether his position was correct or not, and there are an infinite amount of possible answers to morality.

Kerrigan Skelly's best response was "You don't believe the pink unicorn is cause either". While this answer seems like a good argument if someone isn't thinking, its really just a non-response.

Some of the older members will know why I choose to post this debate in particular.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 3:21:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 2:11:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:


Here's a pretty interesting debate between an athiest vs. christian. It's a long debate.

My thoughts on it:

Kerrigan Skelly was obviously a better speaker and came up as more "likeable" but that's mainly due to his experience as a radio speaker. Erik Dickerson had no shot in that regard because he had poor speaking experience and came off as very nervous making his position look weaker. And of this is because Erik Dickerson was just some guy with a youtube account. In his youtube account, he never even spoke but would use a robotic voice, thus demonstrating his uncomfortably with public speaking. The radio host audience probably knew this beforehand, and were looking for a strawman atheist to win against.

Erik Dickerson main obvious weakness was his understanding of moral philosophy, which Kerrigan Skelly could easily exploit. With that said, Kerrigan Skelly could not really explain why morality explains God's existance. Erik Dickerson made the argument that believing knowing the explanation was not an indication of whether his position was correct or not, and there are an infinite amount of possible answers to morality.

Kerrigan Skelly's best response was "You don't believe the pink unicorn is cause either". While this answer seems like a good argument if someone isn't thinking, its really just a non-response.

Some of the older members will know why I choose to post this debate in particular.

I agree with the discomfort of public speaking and Radio is a great venue to 'defeat' that fear.

I would like to invite you, RoyLatham to a verbal 'aired' discussion with a resolution topic along the atheistic/theistic discussion. Let me know if you are up for it.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 4:16:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 3:21:40 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/30/2012 2:11:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:


Here's a pretty interesting debate between an athiest vs. christian. It's a long debate.

My thoughts on it:

Kerrigan Skelly was obviously a better speaker and came up as more "likeable" but that's mainly due to his experience as a radio speaker. Erik Dickerson had no shot in that regard because he had poor speaking experience and came off as very nervous making his position look weaker. And of this is because Erik Dickerson was just some guy with a youtube account. In his youtube account, he never even spoke but would use a robotic voice, thus demonstrating his uncomfortably with public speaking. The radio host audience probably knew this beforehand, and were looking for a strawman atheist to win against.

Erik Dickerson main obvious weakness was his understanding of moral philosophy, which Kerrigan Skelly could easily exploit. With that said, Kerrigan Skelly could not really explain why morality explains God's existance. Erik Dickerson made the argument that believing knowing the explanation was not an indication of whether his position was correct or not, and there are an infinite amount of possible answers to morality.

Kerrigan Skelly's best response was "You don't believe the pink unicorn is cause either". While this answer seems like a good argument if someone isn't thinking, its really just a non-response.

Some of the older members will know why I choose to post this debate in particular.

I agree with the discomfort of public speaking and Radio is a great venue to 'defeat' that fear.

I would like to invite you, RoyLatham to a verbal 'aired' discussion with a resolution topic along the atheistic/theistic discussion. Let me know if you are up for it.

Lol, I'm not roylatham :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 4:18:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I especially like that izbo thought he bowled over Skelly.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 4:32:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 4:18:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I especially like that izbo thought he bowled over Skelly.

Lol. Really!? When did he say that?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 4:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 4:32:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/30/2012 4:18:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I especially like that izbo thought he bowled over Skelly.

Lol. Really!? When did he say that?

It was a while ago. I was talking about how I didn't think either party made a particularly good case for their side, but that izbo's was worse. And he went on a rant about how we were all idiots for thinking that Skelly even came close to izbo's level during the debate. It was a level of delusion that was really sad more than anything else.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 4:37:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
haaa! I listened to part of this before. Couldn't get through the whole thing though.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 4:40:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 4:16:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/30/2012 3:21:40 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/30/2012 2:11:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:


Here's a pretty interesting debate between an athiest vs. christian. It's a long debate.

My thoughts on it:

Kerrigan Skelly was obviously a better speaker and came up as more "likeable" but that's mainly due to his experience as a radio speaker. Erik Dickerson had no shot in that regard because he had poor speaking experience and came off as very nervous making his position look weaker. And of this is because Erik Dickerson was just some guy with a youtube account. In his youtube account, he never even spoke but would use a robotic voice, thus demonstrating his uncomfortably with public speaking. The radio host audience probably knew this beforehand, and were looking for a strawman atheist to win against.

Erik Dickerson main obvious weakness was his understanding of moral philosophy, which Kerrigan Skelly could easily exploit. With that said, Kerrigan Skelly could not really explain why morality explains God's existance. Erik Dickerson made the argument that believing knowing the explanation was not an indication of whether his position was correct or not, and there are an infinite amount of possible answers to morality.

Kerrigan Skelly's best response was "You don't believe the pink unicorn is cause either". While this answer seems like a good argument if someone isn't thinking, its really just a non-response.

Some of the older members will know why I choose to post this debate in particular.

I agree with the discomfort of public speaking and Radio is a great venue to 'defeat' that fear.

I would like to invite you, RoyLatham to a verbal 'aired' discussion with a resolution topic along the atheistic/theistic discussion. Let me know if you are up for it.

Lol, I'm not roylatham :p.

Sorry, I was typing RoyLatham but meaning you (darkkermit). The Avatar Pic put his name in my head. Forgive me. Up for it?