Kent Hovind vs. Aron Ra

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's actually happening, a debate in the format that is worst for Hovind. Instead of a live debate, they make videos, upload their videos, download each others videos, and insert responses. It is much like a written debate, but on video instead of paper.

Frankly I'm surprised Hovind agreed, but after watching Round One, led off by Aron Ra, I can see where Kent is going with this.

Aron posted one video, and Kent replied with seven videos. That was Round One.

Aron has been posting and is still posting his Round Two videos, Kent is already posting his Round Three (?) videos. Um, Kent, you need to respond to Round Two before you can move on to Round Three.

Kent wanted to keep the videos private just between the two of them, Aron refused and posted everything publicly to YouTube. He even had to post Kent's videos because Kent uploaded them and then set them to private.

I think Aron is doing a pretty good job abolishing Kent's arguments, and Kent is doing a good job whining about it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Kent Hovind was the first Creationist I came across. Found a website that debunked every one of his claims, but sadly it no longer exists.

 

[James Brown]

What? No links?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is all on Aron Ra's channel on YouTube. Sorry I didn't link it.

If you can stand watching Hovind's videos, I recommend watching them on Aron's channel.

Hovind is the first creationist I've ever seen be called to task for inaccuracies by other creationists.

Debate Playlist

 

[Gun Nut]

9 hours of ad homin attacks on each other and about 8.5 minutes of scientific debate. disappointed.

 

[Lion IRC]

According to the atheist rules of debate it's not an ad hominem;
- if everyone knows it's true
- if it makes no difference to the inevitable outcome of the debate
- if the other person "started it"
- because only sticks and stones can break your bones
- because filthy scumbag Christofascist liar is meant as a compliment

 

[Keith&Co.]

I would say, "citation needed," but it's standard creationist made-up-shit.
Again.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

According to the atheist rules of debate it's not an ad hominem;
- if everyone knows it's true
- if it makes no difference to the inevitable outcome of the debate
- if the other person "started it"
- because only sticks and stones can break your bones
- because filthy scumbag Christofascist liar is meant as a compliment

"You're bad therefore you're wrong" is an ad hominem.
"You're wrong and also you're bad" is merely in poor taste.

 

[Lion IRC]

That's what I just said.
According to the atheist standard play book of debating it's never an ad hominem.

"You're a filthy scum sucking liar. Now, let's continue the debate you braindead moron!"

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That's what I just said.
According to the atheist standard play book of debating it's never an ad hominem.

"You're a filthy scum sucking liar. Now, let's continue the debate you braindead moron!"

No. My clarification was correct. The first line, whether used by a creationist or a non-creationist, is an ad hominem. The second line, whether used by a creationist or a non-creationist, is not an ad hominem.

 

[James Brown]

I've never heard an atheist debate this way. One might wonder if there is some projection going on.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I've never heard an atheist debate this way. One might wonder if there is some projection going on.

With Lion, almost certainly.
Plus, he doesn't seem to kniw what a ad hominem actually is.

 

[blastula]

They also had a "discussion" back in March.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKltaQ5HlA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Lion IRC]

I've never heard an atheist debate this way. One might wonder if there is some projection going on.

With Lion, almost certainly.
Plus, he doesn't seem to kniw what a ad hominem actually is.

That's right.
I have the mistaken view that using an abusive ad hominem in the course of a debate serves only one purpose.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I've never heard an atheist debate this way. One might wonder if there is some projection going on.

With Lion, almost certainly.
Plus, he doesn't seem to kniw what a ad hominem actually is.

That's right.
I have the mistaken view that using an abusive ad hominem in the course of a debate serves only one purpose.

Go back and review my description of the difference between ad hominem and name calling. Then read it again.

 

[Lion IRC]

How about I read it 100 times.
Will that make you more correct?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

How about I read it 100 times.
Will that make you more correct?

It might make you understand the difference.

How about you explain the difference between name-calling and ad hominem to me, but without using the words "creationist", "scientist", "atheist" or "christian"? Maybe then I can find out if you understand it.

 

[Lion IRC]

You claim that a derogatory personal remark made about ones debating opponent is not necessarily an abusive ad hominem Then you ask me to explain the difference between that (mere) insult and a real ad hom.

Do you not see how you have just rendered the term ad hom meaningless?
According to your (team atheism) rules you can make a personal attack on your opponent whenever you like and then plead, as a defence, that you didn't mean to influence the audience's opinion.

"...hey everyone, my debating opponent is a known liar. I just want to get that on the record before we start the debate. (For no reason in particular.) OK now we can proceed with the unbiased, purely rational/logical contest of ideas.
...now that you know the truth about my scumbag, brain dead moron opponent "

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You claim that a derogatory personal remark made about ones debating opponent is not necessarily an abusive ad hominem Then you ask me to explain the difference between that (mere) insult and a real ad hom.

Do you not see how you have just rendered the term ad hom meaningless?
According to your (team atheism) rules you can make a personal attack on your opponent whenever you like and then plead, as a defence, that you didn't mean to influence the audience's opinion.

"...hey everyone, my debating opponent is a known liar. I just want to get that on the record before we start the debate. (For no reason in particular.) OK now we can proceed with the unbiased, purely rational/logical contest of ideas.
...now that you know the truth about my scumbag, brain dead moron opponent "

First of all, I'm not an atheist, I'm merely someone who can tell the difference between an insult and an ad hom. Telling the difference doesn't render the term meaningless.

Ad hom is "you are bad therefore your argument is bad."
Insult is "your argument is bad and also you are bad."

The difference is very important, and to learn it would benefit you greatly. So try again. You explain the difference between name-calling and ad hominem to me, but without using the words "creationist", "scientist", "atheist" or "christian".

You and I, both of us, and either of us, can all say "you are stupid" without it being an ad hominem. There is a difference. You can do it too, if you know the difference.

 

[Lion IRC]

Oh we're doing the hamster wheel are we?
Go back and review my comments about your comments regarding the difference between ad hominem and name calling. Then read them again.
Then repost your original claim a third time.