Why Atheists Are Such Lousy Debaters

Mo Rocca has appeared on a bunch of shows, including 'The Daily Show,' 'I Love the 80s,'...

Mo Rocca Feed

Why Atheists Are Such Lousy Debaters

Posted Jan 3rd 2008 1:35PM by Dinesh D'Souza
Filed under: Christianity, Controversy, Atheism, Film

UPDATE: If you haven't seen my debates with Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer and Daniel Dennett, you can watch them here. I am waiting for Shermer to post our Cal Tech debate of December 9, which was recorded by his Skeptic Society.

I watched the movie "The Great Debaters" last night, and it helped me to understand why atheists are such bad debaters. The movie portrays four students from a little black college in Texas, and shows how, under the tutelage of their pugnacious coach, they went on to defeat Almighty Harvard. Denzel Washington, who plays the coach, says early in the movie that debate is a kind of bloodsport. It's great virtue is that it puts rival ideas up against each other, as argued by people who passionately espouse those ideas, and then it lets the truth emerge through a kind of gladiatorial elimination.
For about three years, it appeared as though the leading atheists were formidable debaters. But the reason was that Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens were selecting weak opponents and then generally giving them a public whipping. In one staged encounter, hardly a debate, Richard Dawkins ambushed televangelist Ted Haggard for a film Dawkins was making. Not only did Dawkins control the format, he also controlled what was shown on film. No wonder Dawkins got the better of that encounter. Harris took on pastor Rick Warren in Newsweek, where Harris made outrageous allegations and Warren basically said that Christians are nice people because they help AIDS victims in Africa. Again, this was hardly a fair fight. Hitchens promoted his book God Is Not Great by traipsing through the South taking on local pastors. Now your typical pastor is not used to debating a versatile and suave character like Hitchens. A few months ago Hitchens embarrassed theologian Alister McGrath in Washington D.C. One problem is that Hitchens has the Richard Burton accent and McGrath sounds like he just came in from shooting birds in the Scottish highlands. Another problem is that McGrath couldn't handle Hitchens' vitriolic accusations and came off looking conciliatory and weak.

Unlike the characters in "The Great Debaters," I was never part of a debate team. I got my debate practice through confronting critics of my various books. Mostly I learned by taking on such seasoned debaters as presidential candidate Walter Mondale, the literary scholar Stanley Fish, and a whole series of civil rights activists from Cornel West to Jesse Jackson. Prior to my debate with Hitchens, he described me as "one of the most formidable debaters on any topic." Richard Dawkins seems to agree: the great Haggard-slayer has somehow gotten cold feet when it comes to debating me. I guess he's afraid that I'll make him look as ridiculous as Haggard.

Then there's Sam Harris, who tells me that debate is not a very useful medium to arrive at the truth. He didn't seem to think that previously, but now it seems that he too is afraid of looking like a public fool. Harris wants to engage in a written debate, and I've agreed, but it should be noted that written debates allow each side to consult experts and therefore they don't reflect the true spirit of debate, which is the clash of ideas embodied in the most articulate representatives of those ideas. I've suggested to Harris a couple of weeks ago that we do both a written and an oral debate, and I'm waiting to hear his response.

Why are the atheists faring so badly in these debates? I think the main reason is that they are so arrogant. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens really think that their position reflects pure reason and that my position reflects "blind faith." If this were really true they should win every single debate, for the same reason that a round-earth advocate should never lose to a flat-earth advocate. In reality there are good arguments on both sides, and I as a believer know this. I know it's hard to make the case for an invisible God and for an afterlife. In short, I know the strength of the argument on the other side. Leading atheists, however, simply do not expect to hear good counterarguments to their position. When they do, they have no idea how to answer them. So they either erupt into jejune name-calling (all to familiar to readers of this blog) or they slowly fall apart (witness what happened to Daniel Dennett).

In reality, I don't have to win debates against atheists; I merely have to draw. Just by coming out even, I defeat the atheist premise that atheism is the position based on reason and religion is the position based on unreason. Even a tie shows that both positions are reasonable. By defeating atheists in debate, however, I have totally exploded the atheist self-pretense. I have shown atheists to be the unreasonable ones, and this is why leading atheists like Dawkins and Harris are now going into hiding. But if these guys are scared to debate me, even in secular university settings where the audience is largely on their side, what does this say about them and about the soundness of their positions? Perhaps Dawkins and company should go and see "The Great Debaters." They might get some useful tips, and they might also get their nerve back.

Permalink
Email this
Linking Blogs
Comments [1315]
Share this
- Add this post to...
- Netscape
- Digg
- Del.icio.us

Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 88)

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

1. It's a shame(honest)debate isn't taught in church's, the rise of militant anti-Christians are forcing the issue, maybe we will wake up before it's too late. We are supposed to be passive and "let it go" when someone is combative but it's turning us into a bunch of idiots that can't think on our feet. Because of it we're losing our schools and government to special interest that should never have a say in public policy.

STaylor at 5:49PM on Jan 23rd 2008

2. Dinesh; maybe their unwillingness to debate you speaks more to your lack of relevancy?

Ryan Anderson at 2:31PM on Jan 3rd 2008

3. Until Denise can argue both affirmative and negative he's no debater. He's just a preacher.

Clif Kuplen at 2:46PM on Jan 3rd 2008

4. With all due respect, Dinesh, and I'm a believer myself, Hitchens schooled you. About halfway through What's So Great About Christianity and enjoying it though!

Sherif at 3:05PM on Jan 3rd 2008

5. How flattering Mr. D'Souza compares atheists to the "almight Harvard." I like it.
And did Mr. D'Souza actually mention Ted Haggard's name in the above article? Something about Richard Dawkin's 'ambushing' him?
Perhaps the good "reverend" should not have agreed to the debate. But given what Haggard was REALLY busy doing, no wonder he had no time to prepare for a debate!

David S. at 3:07PM on Jan 3rd 2008

6. Would any one in your organization (or any competent person you know) would like to debate me about the Newton's First Law of Motion. I am assuming most scientists and natural philosopher would like to defend Newton. I will take the opposite view that Newton's First Law of Motion as enunciated in Principia, most text book and science classrooms.

Pal Asija at 3:47PM on Jan 3rd 2008

7. Is denise declaring himself a master debater?

Clif Kuplen at 3:07PM on Jan 3rd 2008

8. Sure, "written debates allow each side to consult experts". Maybe that doesn't "reflect the true spirit of debate", but wouldn't that allow for more nuanced, detailed, thoughtful, and accurate points to be made? Wouldn't that allow the best possible arguments to be advanced for each side, and not merely what any one 'representative', however "articulate", might be able to propound on the spot?

Oral debate makes fine theater, no doubt. But Dinesh undermines his own point here, by stating that atheists were winning against "weak opponents". What does the *truth* of an idea have to do with the 'strength' or 'weakness' of the opponents? Indeed, why does Dinesh imply that the theists lost because they were 'weak' proponents, but the atheists lost because of the (un)"soundness of their positions"? On what does he base that assessment?

Perhaps Dinesh has won oral debates against atheists - the only one I've watched, with Dennett, didn't strike me that way - but even if that were true, perhaps he just hasn't met an atheist who's a 'strong' oral debater... yet.

Ray Ingles at 3:08PM on Jan 3rd 2008

9. ATHEIST

DINESH: In reality, I don't have to win debates against atheists; I merely have to draw. Just by coming out even, I defeat the atheist premise that atheism is the position based on reason and religion is the position based on unreason.
___________

another LIE.

At the start of your debate at Cal Tech, you said you were NOT going to defend the events in the bible. You were ONLY going to talk about recent church history.

You only demonstrated to the audience that you're a silly little man, and not a scholar.

Let me list some of the things atheists think are based on unreason:

RESURRECTION
GHOSTS APPEARING TO GIRLFRIENDS IN CEMETARIES
EXORCISM
DEMONIC SPIRITS
A VIRGIN CONCEPTION
A FIERY PIT TO PUNISH ANGELS
EMPTY TOMBS
SIN
A SAVIOR WHO DIED IN YOUR PLACE

I've seen a lot of people who died... and there was no Savior who died in their place.

Every time you speak, Dinesh.... you lose.

Because Atheistm is the Correct Answer.

You asked Michael Shermer some of your silly questions, and the audience applauded his answers.

Because your questions were juvenile and ridiculous.

William Hays at 3:13PM on Jan 3rd 2008

10. Short answer: atheists are "lousy debaters" because they intellectually kick your ass every time.

Long answer: atheists are "lousy debaters" because they intellectually kick your ass every time.

IOW: Go throw a tantrum somewhere else, idiot. It's neither the fault nor the problem of atheists that you are trying to defend that which cannot be rationally defended. It's YOUR problem and YOUR fault. YOU deal with it. Don't pawn your stupidity onto us.

And why is it that you hate atheists so much, other than the fact that they routinely intellectually kick your ass?

Once again: I challenge you to a debate. There will be some ground rules, such as you attempting to smear atheists with communism will result in an automatic disqualification for you. After all: if you want to whine about "jejune name-calling", then you cannot do it, either. Unless, of course, you enjoy being a hypocrite.

Knight_of_BAAWA at 3:14PM on Jan 3rd 2008

11. The greatest debaters that I have ever heard about were athiests: Socrates and Clarence Darrow.

The best debater on TV is the lawyer on Boston Legal: Allan Shore. He appears to be an athiest.

But the bigger picture is: who pleases God more?
I think athiests do. And I wouldn't at all be surprised to discover if Jesus' contemporaries thought he was an athiest, too.

The Goddess Athena at 3:17PM on Jan 3rd 2008

12. ATHEIST

Reply to: Why are the atheists faring so badly in these debates? I think the main reason is that they are so arrogant. Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens really think that their position reflects pure reason and that my position reflects "blind faith."
___________

Are you joking?

In your debate with Michael Shermer, you both agreed on the topic

"Is religion a force for good or evil in the world?"

If you LIMIT your discussion to that topic, how would anything you say be based on "blind faith"?

Shermer agreed to your topic for several reasons.

(1) He was doing PR for his organization, which is based on Cal Tech.

(2) He wanted you to come off as credible because he's your friend.

Dinesh, you're losing THIS debate.

The one we're having on THIS forum.

Because I've torn your Opening Statement apart, and you haven't responded to mine.

Everyone here knows WHY you're lying.

You're full of yourself.

Reply to: I know it's hard to make the case for an invisible God and for an afterlife. In short, I know the strength of the argument on the other side. Leading atheists, however, simply do not expect to hear good counterarguments to their position (end)

You haven't made a "good counterargument."

You've said "Having a belief in a God has been of greater benefit to humanity than having a belief in no God."

The age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

For the first NINE BILLION years, the earth and our sun did not exist.

NINE BILLION YEARS before your God got around to creating human life.

You're talking about an Imaginary God.

SCIENCE has exposed your silly religious beliefs as NOT CREDIBLE.

Michael Shermer could have spent three hours giving the evidence against a God... but he didn't because he agreed to debate the topic,

"Is religion a force for good or evil?"

At the end of the Cal Tech debate, the moderator had to ask the audience to stop laughing at you.

It's right there on the video.

William Hays at 3:22PM on Jan 3rd 2008

13. Dinesh, you're correct. When I read the word of God, I see repeated appeals to its reasonableness. I take on atheists online constantly, and they are typically used to beating weaker opponents. When they meet someone strong, they are at a total loss. If the responses to your posts are typical of the intellectual firepower of the average atheist, I am certain I'm on the right side. It's almost comical, but really sad when you consider the position they have chosen to defend.

Steve at 3:33PM on Jan 3rd 2008

14. The high time for so-called christian debaters was during the Inquisition. Then, they had the Malleus Malificarum at their disposal, the casuistry of Jesuits, the monopoly on faith in Europe and no end of stakes on which to burn those who disagreed with them. And they still lost. Their failure is called the Reformation, the Age of Reason, the founding of the United States of America, the French Revolution, the rise of Scientific method, Democracy, Marxism, the Russian Revolution and the Suicide of Royal houses in WWI. The only way religion can ever win hearts and minds is through force; just look at how the Muslims are doing it now in the lands they occupy. Only survivors of their purges get to live and await the second coming.
Why do they pay you, little man? Why do you not get a job?

@#$%&! at 3:31PM on Jan 3rd 2008

15.

Ray Ingles, this is a decent point. But the fact is, if you took the winning team of the NCAA debates, and had them debate ANY issue, EITHER side with the average American college student, they'd run the table. They would probably win both sides of a position against 2 different opponents. Why do the atheists fall at the feet of Dawkins? He's their MAN! If their position was so good, wouldn't each and every one of them be able to make the same case just as convincingly? Of course not. And such is the answer to your original question.

Steve at 3:34PM on Jan 3rd 2008

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Mo's Video

The Sound of a Smoke-Free Barack...
Almost two years ago we speculated on how Barack Obama's voice would change if he stopped smoking. ...

Coming Soon

Most Commented On

Coming Soon

Mo's Bio

Mo Rocca appears on a bunch of shows, including CBS News Sunday Morning (with the indescribably wonderful Charles Osgood), The Tonight Show on NBC, and NPR's Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! He's a sometime judge on Iron Chef and was featured on Telemundo's Amore Descarado. Last year he starred on Broadway in the 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee. His expose "All the President's Pets" was published by Crown in 2004.