I urge you to prepare properly. Not only Hitchens but Richard Carrier and several other atheists have been humiliated in debate with him, by their own admission. Winning at all is challenge enough, and would be a great service to the world. Given how much of a blow you would find it to lose having fully prepared, I urge you to to reconsider whether you’re self-handicapping.
Eleizer will be humiliated. Even if Eleizer prepares for the debate he will still lose. Eleizer spends too much time thinking rationally for him to be a match for a master debater. I’ve seen him on Bloggingheads. He doesn’t spend nearly enough energy producing the kind of bullshit you are supposed to throw together if you want to be considered victorious in a debate.
I disagree; I watched Eliezer vs Adam Frank, and at several points I paused it, trying to work out what I’d say in response to Frank’s arguments. I still found that Eliezer got across the counterarguments in a far neater way when I unpaused, and he had a lot less time than I did.
(BTW, after hearing that I also learned how his name is pronounced, so I’m better at spelling it correctly: it’s Eli-Ezer, four syllables.)
I disagree; I watched Eliezer vs Adam Frank, and at several points I paused it, trying to work out what I’d say in response to Frank’s arguments. I still found that Eliezer got across the counterarguments in a far neater way when I unpaused, and he had a lot less time than I did.
I have not observed that getting across counterarguments in a neat way is a particularly vital element of what it takes to ‘win’ a debate.
I’d read Frank’s book. (And I did try to direct him to the webpages whereby he could have read my stuff.) But I think I could’ve done it equally well on the fly.
Eleizer will be humiliated. Even if Eleizer prepares for the debate he will still lose. Eleizer spends too much time thinking rationally for him to be a match for a master debater. I’ve seen him on Bloggingheads. He doesn’t spend nearly enough energy producing the kind of bullshit you are supposed to throw together if you want to be considered victorious in a debate.
I disagree; I watched Eliezer vs Adam Frank, and at several points I paused it, trying to work out what I’d say in response to Frank’s arguments. I still found that Eliezer got across the counterarguments in a far neater way when I unpaused, and he had a lot less time than I did.
(BTW, after hearing that I also learned how his name is pronounced, so I’m better at spelling it correctly: it’s Eli-Ezer, four syllables.)
I have not observed that getting across counterarguments in a neat way is a particularly vital element of what it takes to ‘win’ a debate.
I’d read Frank’s book. (And I did try to direct him to the webpages whereby he could have read my stuff.) But I think I could’ve done it equally well on the fly.