Since I'll be debating D'Souza on February 10th at the University of Illinois I'm studying his debates. Check this out. The other parts can be found there as well.
Dinesh D'Souza doesn't seem to make many substantive or responsive arguments. I wonder how he gets invited to so many debates, instead of someone like Richard Harries, who I think gives a much more substantive defense of Christianity and thoughtful criticism of atheism than D'Souza ever could.
I almost fear that by being attentive and responsive to D'Souza his points may be dignified beyond what is merited. Of course, he should be refuted, but I think the refutations of D'Souza could be simple and quick and leave lots of space for an alternative, positive argument.
Thanks for posting this. I thought that Singer did very, very well against D'Souza. My only wish was that Singer would have answered more aggressively during the question and answer period. D'Souza seemed to gobble up lots of extra time and break the rules while Singer remained obedient (ironically, lol). Singer should've broken the format and rebutted D'Souza directly a few times, I thought.
But overall, Singer had cogent, thoughtful replies to everything D'Souza said. He could have used a little more flair, but I think this was one of the biggest smackdowns D'Souza has yet endured.
Andy I agree. It's just hard to make a sustained case in a debate, and it's hard to rebut every one of Dinesh's arguments when he rattles them off so fast.
What kind of agression can Singer actually muster?...someone who believes that animals have more rights and a right to live than human beings is is NUT!
I want him to vist one of your family members with alzhiemers if you have any. When he get's finished telling you that they don't deserve to live because they have no self-awareness then come back and tell us about your praise for this idiot.
I've know about this guy is for years and he's seems to be even worse now than previously.
First, John, I wish it was somebody other than D'Souza. I've watched three or four of these things with him, and I can't help but think he's a clown who isn't worth the time. He thinks he's worth the time. But he isn't.
If anything, he needs to commit to a written debate in which all of his fallacies and misunderstandings can be properly pointed out. In a live setting he's able to get away with a lot of crap that he otherwise should be ridiculed for.
That said, I'm glad you're getting to debate a semi-high-profile apologist. I trust that you'll prepare well.
Second, Harvey, yours is a natural reaction of somebody who hasn't actually read Singer's work, but has heard about his conclusions.
Reference singer out of his own mouth for one...Obviously you haven't heard him ever explain his beliefs regarding functionalism:
“Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”;...“the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”[Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 122–23]
"“We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.”[Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 173]
Singer emplores utilitarian consequentialist ethics. He cannot deny what I say with a straight face. He applies the same principle views of babies to the eldery and disabled claiming that IF someone has written instructions on how they want to be disposed of then we shouldn't violate those written instructions...OBFUSCATION ALERT!
The fact is he only holds that valid for WRITTEN instructions...what about those who made no preparation and are non functional? In Singer's world they have a very low value if NO value at all...
Look up his works and read them with the same criticism that you CLIAM you read the bible with...you'll see it for yourself even in brail if necessary.
How can this guy be any type of hero for anyone? WOW!
Harvey: Singer believes infants are not human beings, so your first statement, "someone who believes that animals have more rights and a right to live than human beings" is only true from your perspective.
He did demolish D'Souza, but that's not saying much. I watched their debate long ago, and I do not recall if Singer shot down one of D'Souza's pet canards: the fine-tuning argument.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. -Douglas Adams
All DD has is the God of the gaps, especially in the Barker 'debate', and when Barker pointed this out, DD changed the point to say that people find gaps frustrating,and answered THAT point. So someone has to explain how science really works in order to head this off. Also, evident in the Singer event, DD very often re-interprets a point then provides a rebuttal to his own interpretation. It will be difficult to refute this if the format does not allow for interactive questioning. In addition, every time DD says "...as a matter of fact..." he could never provide evidence to back it up. Watch for the word "fact", and you will catch him lying.
11 comments:
Dinesh D'Souza doesn't seem to make many substantive or responsive arguments. I wonder how he gets invited to so many debates, instead of someone like Richard Harries, who I think gives a much more substantive defense of Christianity and thoughtful criticism of atheism than D'Souza ever could.
I almost fear that by being attentive and responsive to D'Souza his points may be dignified beyond what is merited. Of course, he should be refuted, but I think the refutations of D'Souza could be simple and quick and leave lots of space for an alternative, positive argument.
Hey John--
Thanks for posting this. I thought that Singer did very, very well against D'Souza. My only wish was that Singer would have answered more aggressively during the question and answer period. D'Souza seemed to gobble up lots of extra time and break the rules while Singer remained obedient (ironically, lol). Singer should've broken the format and rebutted D'Souza directly a few times, I thought.
But overall, Singer had cogent, thoughtful replies to everything D'Souza said. He could have used a little more flair, but I think this was one of the biggest smackdowns D'Souza has yet endured.
What was your take?
Andy I agree. It's just hard to make a sustained case in a debate, and it's hard to rebut every one of Dinesh's arguments when he rattles them off so fast.
What kind of agression can Singer actually muster?...someone who believes that animals have more rights and a right to live than human beings is is NUT!
I want him to vist one of your family members with alzhiemers if you have any. When he get's finished telling you that they don't deserve to live because they have no self-awareness then come back and tell us about your praise for this idiot.
I've know about this guy is for years and he's seems to be even worse now than previously.
Two points.
First, John, I wish it was somebody other than D'Souza. I've watched three or four of these things with him, and I can't help but think he's a clown who isn't worth the time. He thinks he's worth the time. But he isn't.
If anything, he needs to commit to a written debate in which all of his fallacies and misunderstandings can be properly pointed out. In a live setting he's able to get away with a lot of crap that he otherwise should be ridiculed for.
That said, I'm glad you're getting to debate a semi-high-profile apologist. I trust that you'll prepare well.
Second, Harvey, yours is a natural reaction of somebody who hasn't actually read Singer's work, but has heard about his conclusions.
Harvey wrote: "someone who believes that animals have more rights and a right to live than human beings"
Reference?
Reference singer out of his own mouth for one...Obviously you haven't heard him ever explain his beliefs regarding functionalism:
“Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”;...“the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”[Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 1st ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 122–23]
"“We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.”[Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2d ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 173]
Singer emplores utilitarian consequentialist ethics. He cannot deny what I say with a straight face. He applies the same principle views of babies to the eldery and disabled claiming that IF someone has written instructions on how they want to be disposed of then we shouldn't violate those written instructions...OBFUSCATION ALERT!
The fact is he only holds that valid for WRITTEN instructions...what about those who made no preparation and are non functional? In Singer's world they have a very low value if NO value at all...
Look up his works and read them with the same criticism that you CLIAM you read the bible with...you'll see it for yourself even in brail if necessary.
How can this guy be any type of hero for anyone? WOW!
Harvey: Singer believes infants are not human beings, so your first statement, "someone who believes that animals have more rights and a right to live than human beings" is only true from your perspective.
Sneb,
What the heck??? You're in your own zone I see...
So you think it OK that he thinks born babies up to 6 months old aren't human beings???
Let the others know that please...
Peter Singer <3.
He did demolish D'Souza, but that's not saying much. I watched their debate long ago, and I do not recall if Singer shot down one of D'Souza's pet canards: the fine-tuning argument.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. -Douglas Adams
All DD has is the God of the gaps, especially in the Barker 'debate', and when Barker pointed this out, DD changed the point to say that people find gaps frustrating,and answered THAT point.
So someone has to explain how science really works in order to head this off. Also, evident in the Singer event, DD very often re-interprets a point then provides a rebuttal to his own interpretation. It will be difficult to refute this if the format does not allow for interactive questioning.
In addition, every time DD says "...as a matter of fact..." he could never provide evidence to back it up. Watch for the word "fact", and you will catch him lying.
Post a Comment