I listen to debates all the time (hours and hours of them while I work) and I enjoy those based in the theology the most; regardless, as "theist v atheist" debates go this was one of the most civil I've seen in a while LOL.
Bill was engaging, funny, charming, polite and presented himself well. Yes, he detoured off topic here and there (as atheists often do when debating theists....it comes out naturally as I've witnessed), but ultimately he presented himself very well. I can tell he has no real theological knowledge and he kept asking Ken the ole question about "those that have never heard the gospel", but instead of the "gospel" he replaced it with "creation model" or "creationism". Ken addressed this point before it was asked within his opening remarks....Bill must have missed it.
Ken was a little flat, but attempted humor. From my chair nothing he presented was new information, but neither was Bill’s. Neither of these men are seasoned debaters and that’s ok. I thought Ken devoted too much time to political commentary and less about the subject at hand. He wasted a good 10 minutes talking from a political standpoint about unrelated information. I thought presented himself well though when he was on topic, but he could’ve provided more examples as his website does and gotten more technical as his website does. The 10 minutes he spent on the political perspective could’ve covered more ground at a detail level.
The “uglier” parts of debates are the 2 to 10 minute back and forth exchanges that occur after the opening remarks and primary presentations. Whomever speaks second (or gives the "final reply") always has the advantage of leaving the audience with questions (typically off topic) that the other won't be able to publically address within the debate forum. Many atheists debate a lot like Muslims in this regard….hey, it’s strategy (only seasoned debaters know how to work in answers to these questions later on because they've done it time and again). They pepper their replies with off topic questions that the other presenter has no time to answer (and they know this) and then condemn them for not providing an answer to all the one-offs LOL. Ken responded to Bill’s snow ice question during the back and forth with the example of the airplane buried 250 ft and how the accumulation of ice occurs at much faster rate than Bill presented, but again I suppose Bill missed it.
To be fair, neither presenter can address everything the other says….can’t expect that of them. Last debate I watched yesterday the presenter asked 40 off topic questions.....the other presenter asked 3 out of frustration LOL. Theists often resort to these tactics too out of frustration LOL….they aren’t without blame.
The Q&As always make me laugh because the audience will then ask random, off topic questions. For example, theist presenters may have been debating the subject of “Islam” or “the universe” or “the trinity” and someone in the audience will ask them to resolve the “problem of evil” in 2 minutes LOL…..give me a break. Do what I do and save the question and go read a book or two or five or seek out a lecture on that particular subject.
In the end, the vast majority of theists will side with Ken and the vast majority of atheists with Bill. Yes, there are people that change sides after debates, but I don’t think I’ll be seeing conversions either way after this…..it was an ok debate at best for me.
