Audio only:
In this episode Trent reveals how modern debates make us all dumber and how we can fix them.
What I Will (and Won’t) Debate
Transcription:
Trent:
My name is Trent Horn and my first contention is that today’s popular debate formats are stupid and unproductive. Hey, hello, howdy. Okay, so you say popular debate formats are stupid, but you’re arguing that in a popular debate format. So you’ve just contradicted yourself. I am very intelligent. I actually haven’t contradicted myself because you can critique a system that you belong to. For example, oh, I’m sorry, you already lost the debate because you took too long to answer. So now I can clip this and put it on TikTok and make it look like I totally own you. Wait, what? But you’re arguing that in a popular debate format, so you’ve just contradicted yourself. I am very intelligent.
As a Christian, I want to share my faith with as many people as possible, and Christians have often used debates to do that. But in today’s episode, we’ll see how debates have become dumb ways of sharing the truth and how we can restore debates to their former glory. Public disputations, a. K.a. Debates, were a big part of medieval Christian culture, which carried into the reformation as can be seen in the Leipzig disputation between Martin Luther and Johan Eck. Then with the rise of Democratic Republic centuries later, debates became a way to persuade voters. In 1858, people would gather to listen to Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debate for three hours where each speaker had long uninterrupted periods to lay out his case for how America should be governed. But now we live in a very different time, as can be seen in the mockery of what we now call presidential debates.
Donald Donald. Donald, I understand rules are very hard for you to very confused. I have his book. Thank you for the books. Thank you for the book. Go ahead. Donald, you can get back on your next name. A
CLIP:
Lot of fun up here tonight. I have to tell
Trent:
You. Even the CNN closed captioning guy gave up and just called this unintelligible yelling. These aren’t debates. There’s no central point that is discussed at length. These are just opportunities for someone to get the soundbite of the night that will be played ad nauseum on cable news networks and social media posts the next day. What we have today comes from the advent of television debates that elevated style over substance. In 1960, the first televised presidential debate took place between John F. Kennedy and incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon. Nixon was tired recovering from knee surgery and he had a suit that blended into the background. JFK, however, was tan, energetic, and had a skilled makeup team. It’s a myth that radio listeners thought Nixon won on substance, whereas TV audiences thought JFK won because he looked better. But a televised format at the very least helped JFK and did not help Nixon.
This is one reason no incumbent US president took part in debates until Gerald Ford in 1976, and he probably should have skipped them because the following gaff he made about the Soviet Union was widely seen as costing him the election.
CLIP:
There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration.
Trent:
This was also one year after the premiere of Saturday Night Live, which began its tradition of parodying presidential debates, including mocking Ford’s gaff about Soviet domination.
CLIP:
Certainly anyone can crack under the pressure of these debates and say something incredibly dumb. But to set the record straight, could you describe what you saw on your last visit to Poland?
Montgomery. Last year I visited the Capitol of Poland. And let me just say from the outset that Milwaukee is a beautiful city.
Trent:
The Gaff hunting has been present in presidential debates ever since, and it’s made its way into popular debate channels. Jubilee is a prime example of this, and it’s so copyright sensitive. I’m just going to show you Jubilee parodies, but you get the idea because the parodies accurately reflect how people act in these exchanges.
CLIP:
My first claim is that I don’t think I should be murdered. Hello. Hello. Okay. I’m going to talk really fast in order to make a half fake point and just hope you don’t call me out on it. Does it really matter if I kill you? Secondly, hold on. Hold on. Please don’t interrupt me.
Trent:
Ben Shapiro has been on Jubilee and he agreed with Michael Knowles that it’s a very high stress environment because no matter how well of a case you make, everybody’s just waiting to get that one viral moment where you get owned, and that’s the only moment anyone remembers.
CLIP:
Some people have not done well on that show. And you did well on the show, but I’ve noticed without naming names, some people have had a tough time because you can win for two hours of that show. If the show is two hours and two minutes long, you can win two hours of it. If you flub for two seconds- It’s
Trent:
Very high pressure. It’s very high pressure.
CLIP:
You lose, you look crazy. You look tough. Because it all gets clipped. It’s all about the clips that come out from the thing, for sure.
Trent:
Even regular people on social media treat comment debates as an opportunity to own the other side, like by reposting a poorly worded response with snarky commentary that allows your own fans to virtually dogpile the other person. This is why I find social media debates to usually be a waste of time. And so in many cases, I’ll just privately message the person I disagree with. So this leads me to ask, how do we restore the dignity of debates? Well, first, we should treat debates like reading a textbook, not watching a wrestling match. Debates are an entertaining way to be educated, and my conversion in high school was due in large part to the debates William Lane Craig had with atheists and Patrick Madrid had with Protestants. But a person could be good at winning debates and still hold a false worldview. That’s why we should score debates not on who seemed more confident or left their opponents speechless, but by taking notes to see which arguments were used and how they were answered.
This opens the door for us to learn more about all of the evidence and all the arguments involved since a debater might forget to include them or just not have enough time to include all of them in his discussion. That’s why it’s silly when some atheists think they’ve refuted William Lane Craig by only responding to what he’s presented in formal debates and not his much deeper material in his academic works. Now that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make powerful arguments and debates that lead to memorable moments. A lot of people remember the colorful questions I asked Destiny in our debate on abortion, but I wasn’t trying to gotcha him. I sincerely wanted to analyze Destiny’s worldview and show where it leads to absurd outcomes. In fact, when I recapped the debate with Ben Shapiro, I corrected Ben on a misunderstanding he had related to Destiny’s argument.
And to help create this kind of environment, debate participants should see themselves not as gladiator-like opponents, but as teaching partners who work together to help an audience understand what’s being debated. When I debated Ben Watkins on God’s existence, we exchanged our opening statements beforehand, and that allowed us to have a substantive debate where each of us could present the best case to the audience and let them decide. After the debate ended, Ben gave me a hug on stage and he said to me, “We did it because we saw ourselves as partners, not enemies, trying to present our best case.” Now, that does not mean Christians shouldn’t try to win these exchanges or go for an intellectual knockout. It just means you should fight fairly without fighting dirty. For example, one unfair tactic is to unload as many arguments as possible so that your opponent has no time to answer them all, and then claim victory over the arguments he did not have time to respond to.
This is called the Gish Gallop, named after Dwayne Gish, who would use it in debates on evolution, where he would just list a ton of things he said evolution could not explain and left his opponent no time to answer all of his questions. That was my main critique of the Set of Acontism debate hosted on Pints with Aquinas a few years ago, where Peter Diamond unleashed dozens of accusations that took me 45 minutes to address in a scripted rebuttal. And so it would be impossible to address in a seven to 10 minute live rebuttal period in a debate. A variant of this occurs in online posts where people think the guy who endlessly piles on posts and ends up speaking last is correct. When all that proves is he just might not have a life so he can engage in endless replies. This is why I’ve had a strict rule for years to not do rebuttals to rebuttals, so it doesn’t end up in an endless cycle, but to instead just have a conversation with the person after our initial exchange, provided the person is of goodwill.
The absolute dumbest version of this problem are clips online where one person makes a point and no response is shown, and so it’s assumed that the person making the point owned the other guy, a. K.a. Whoever spoke last wins. Consider this post, which claims when Charlie Kirk met his match at Oxford where he debated scholars rather than average college students in the US.
CLIP:
There are moral truths that are transcendent of time, place, and matter. Okay, but so just to clarify, you believe that this is in the Bible. This is laid out in the Bible that man shall not sleep with man and so therefore- It’s also repeated throughout the New Testament as well. In the book of Matthew, Jesus reaffirms the biblical standard for America.
Okay. So I’m going to make two very, very quick points. So the first, so if we look at the Old Testament in isolation, just to start off with as an example, so let’s look at Exodus 35: two, which suggests that if you work on the Sabbath, you should be put to death. If you look at Leviticus 11:: seven, it suggests that if you have pork, you should be put to death. Let me finish. I’ll be done. If you plant two crops side by side, you should be stoned by your entire village. If you wear a suit, which you are wearing now that contains two different fibers intertwined into the same jacket, you should be burned at the steak by your own mother. Now, following that rationale, in Leviticus 18:22, and it states that man shall not sleep with man, why are we burning ourselves at the stake as well?
Why aren’t we stoning ourselves to death?
Trent:
Oh, hey, 2010 called and they want their Reddit level new atheist arguments back. This isn’t advanced scholarship. It’s something Charlie was well aware of and addresses, which the clip deceptively cuts off.
CLIP:
Do you care to address my main contention that Christ affirmed biblical marriage in the Book of Matthew? And can you tell me the difference between the ceremonial, the moral, and the ritual law? And then finally, also, tell me about Christianity, the difference between the new and the old covenant, or are you just going to cherry pick certain verses of ancient Israel that do not apply to new Christianity?
Trent:
I’ve also had this guy was flat out wrong because the Old Testament does not prescribe capital punishment for violating ritual purity laws like mixing fibers or eating pork. Another unfair tactic are using insults and attacks to just rile up your base. Consider this clip from X with 63 million views that says that this girl cleared Charlie Kirk.
CLIP:
Abortion is murder and should be illegal. What does fetus mean?
A fetus is in utero.
What does fetus mean in Latin?
What the … I’m sorry, is this a
English cause? Inmate means little human being.
His smile is very creepy. Okay.
Smiling is creepy?
No, your smile specifically. Got it. But let’s go back to … We’re losing track here.
No, but what species is the fetus?
The fetus is not a species yet. It’s technically classified as a parasite until it is viable.
Trent:
She doesn’t even know a human fetus belongs to the human species, but her uninformed fans just want their side to own the other person so they don’t care. Moreover, these formats aren’t geared towards slowing the conversation down to expose this kind of ignorance. Instead, each side is motivated to constantly interrupt their opponent and insult or mock him so he loses his train of thought. This makes it seem to a casual observer like the person being interrupted has no answer when in reality his opponent is unfairly attacking his ability to give an answer. Watch how Jay Dyer uses this tactic when debating Tim Gordon.
CLIP:
No, this is your dogmatic statements that are supposed to provide clarity. Right. But they need to be interpreted by you because they’re ambiguous. No, no, no. Are they clear or ambiguous? Perfectly clear. Be Hindus. Really? You just said it was bad. He said it was bad. Wait. Was it clear or bad? You finished jail. I’ll go after you’re done. They explored. They have recourse to God. Fads will do the same thing. So just again, reflection, irrelevant. No, no, that’s a direct object. That’s a genetic fallacy. It’s a direct object. Genetic fallacy to say that because- Not genetic false. It is. I’m logic professor. You just said … I don’t know. So appeal to yourself. Appealed authority. Appealed authority and genetic fallacy. Do you miss another fallacy? They believe. They’re king of falsies. For the record, we agree with you. They have recourse to God in confidence and love.
Start the sentence over. They seek.
Trent:
Now to be clear, none of us is perfect when it comes to charitable disagreement. Sometimes in debates, I’ll get really excited and talk over the other person, or I’ll be worried I’ll forget what I’m thinking about and interrupt, which I unfortunately did in my dialogue with ex- Christian musician, John Steingard. However, in some cases, you have to interrupt in a debate to keep the other person from filibustering or rambling on and on about nothing to avoid answering your question or confronting your objection. But there’s a clear difference between keeping a conversation on track and using manipulative tactics to score a cheap win. And sometimes those tactics don’t even work and they just make you look like an insecure bully. For example, most people agree Donald Trump lost his first 2020 debate with Joe Biden because he was aggressively interrupting Biden probably to try to throw him off his game.
CLIP:
Vote now. Are you going to pack the court? Make sure you in fact let people know. Your senator. I’m not going to answer the question because- Well, you answered that question because the question is- The question is- Supreme Court justice. Radical left. Listen, who is on your list, Joe? Who’s on your list? Gentlemen. We’re going to pack the court. I’m not going to give a list.
Trent:
But in 2024, Trump won his debate with Biden because he was more reserved and let Biden hang himself with his own words.
CLIP:
Dealing with everything we have to do with … Look, if we finally beat Medicare.
Thank you, President Biden. President Trump. Well,
He’s right. He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death and he’s destroying Medicare.
Trent:
That’s why I was baffled when some Catholics said Pearl won her debate with Lila Rose on explicit adult materials, a. K.a. Korn. First, this wasn’t a formal debate. It was an appearance on Pearl’s show where Pearl was insufferable as usual. She didn’t provide evidence for any of her radical claims. Like that erotic material saves more marriages than it harms. Instead, she just muted Lila so that Lila couldn’t respond. And Pearl laughed about it because Pearl is not a serious person.
CLIP:
Anyways, I will unmute you, but I do want to show that you are also
Interrupting me.
Yeah. Pearl, muting your guests is a very
Disrespectful thing to do. Okay. I’m going to do it again.
Trent:
I will never debate Pearl again because she’s the only person I have ever debated who interrupted me during the dedicated speaking parts of a debate. That’s just not true. In fact, marriage is- You can’t interrupt when I’ talking. Doesn’t want to get married or he’s dragging his feet. Why would he not? You can’t interrupt him until the time is over. The man reaps the benefit of unpaid labor of that woman caring for these children intending for the household. And in many cases, you can have a- Quiet now. Your boyfriend can help train you on that one before marriage. Unfortunately, some people see debates as just power spectacles rather than as intellectual investigations. This Catholic on X writes, “Debate only really matters when one will completely overwhelms the other, when you don’t just win rhetorical points, but you break your opponent’s spirit.” Now that might be entertaining if you just want the theological equivalent of bloodsport, but if you actually want to help convert people, it’s pretty ineffective.
For example, the most effective spokesperson for atheism isn’t a loudmouth trying to break people’s spirits. It’s a common collected person like Alex O’Connor. That demeanor allowed Alex to do well on Jubilee’s surrounded series. And the most effective Christians on that series, like Charlie Kirk, Ali Bestucky, or Lila Rose, have been those who led with kindness. This reflects Ephesians 6:12, “For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness and the heavenly places.” A lot of people fall into cheap debating tactics because they see their opponent as just an enemy and not as a fellow human being made in the image of God. Two Timothy chapter two says, “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome, but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness.
God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth and they may escape from the snare of the devil after being captured by him to do his will.” I’m glad I didn’t try to break Stephen Boyce’s spirit when I debated him two years ago because as I mentioned in a previous episode, Stephen has now become Catholic. He even said that mine and Jimmy’s demeanor in our debate was helpful in his conversion.
CLIP:
When you and I debated with Samuel and as well as with Jimmy Aiken, I was battling things that you didn’t know and you are friendly and we maintained a friendship after that and have continued that friendship. And that is a huge part in me being able to listen to my opponent. If you would have come after me like I’m seeing on a lot of YouTube videos between Trad this and Trad that, and Anthema, an anthem on everything I say, I don’t think I would have listened to that person very much.
Trent:
This is a great illustration of the teaching in Second Timothy that kind correction can be the best means of rescuing someone from a dangerous error. That same letter also instructs Christians to stop debating stupid stuff. Two Timothy 2:23 says, “Have nothing to do with stupid senseless controversies. You know that they breed quarrels.” In a previous episode I’ll link to below, I explained why I’m only going to debate issues involving widespread evils that can be discussed in a debate format. Even important issues like is the Bible true are too broad to cover in a single debate, which was one of my criticisms of Dinesh de Sousa’s attempt to debate Alex O’Connor on that question. But I’m definitely not going to debate silly questions that only appeal to a fringe group of people or conspiracy theories that aren’t about anything important. In fact, many of those debates aren’t even about truth, but are geared towards creating gotcha social media moments.
The most shameless recent example would be when Bart Sobrell debated a 90-year-old Apollo astronaut, Charles Duke, on whether we went to the moon. And Duke didn’t even know they were debating this.
CLIP:
And you’re calling me a liar. I never went to the moon. Well, obviously. I mean, what a surprise. You knew who you were going to be here. You knew who was going to be here before you got here. You act like it’s a surprise. It’s a good acting. I wasn’t surprised. I didn’t realize that you thought it was all a fate.
Trent:
You probably won’t be surprised to learn that Buzz Aldrin punched Sabrell in the face for calling him a liar about going to the moon.
CLIP:
You’re the one who said you walked on the moon when you didn’t. Calling a kettle black, if you ever thought of saying I misrepresented myself. You get away from me. You’re a coward and a liar and a thief.
Trent:
And if debates like this make you think we didn’t land on the moon, then you are the prime example of how not to treat debates when it comes to forming a worldview. Now people will say to me, “But you debated destiny, so why not debate some other person with insane or deprave views?” First, I debated destiny on abortion and online explicit materials, which are widely accepted evils. And I only debated destiny to get a do over of when Lila Rose and Kristen Hawkins debated him. And the second person that I debated on explicit materials said she’d only debate me if it was a tag team debate and Destiny helped her. In those debates also, I used destiny’s views to show his position on issues like abortion was incorrect. I would never do a two hour debate just on some insane perversion like bestiality. And honestly, given what destiny has advocated for recently, I’m not sure if I debate him in the future either.
So instead of debating senseless controversies or people who are not of goodwill, let’s focus on discussing the most important questions human beings need to answer, like whether there is a God or what we must do to be in a right relationship with God and whether widely practice evils are indeed evil and alienate us from God. We should also focus on presenting good arguments over empty rhetoric. Over 2,500 years ago, there were two kinds of people who publicly debated ancient Greece. First, there were the Sophos from the Greek word for wisdom, sophos. You could call them wise guys, and they were the original debate me bros. They had a notorious reputation for only caring about winning arguments even if they used flimsy arguments to make their case. For them, truth took a backseat. That’s why the first Sophist protagorist said, “Man is the measure of all things.” The other kind of debaters were philosophers from the Greek for lovers of wisdom.
Arguments were a tool they used to discover objective truth. They weren’t just ways of owning people. That’s why the Greek philosopher Socrates said, “Renouncing the honors at which the world aims, I desire only to know the truth and to live as well as I can and when I die to die as well as I can. ” Socrates’ sincere desire for truth was why early church fathers like Justin Martyr saw him as a precursor to Jesus Christ, the truth itself. If you want a good book related to these two men, check out Peter Kraft’s Socrates meets Jesus. Finally, as believers, we should imitate the first Christians, people like the Jewish convert Apollos who powerfully confuted those who denied Christ and Steven, who as scripture says his opponents could not withstand the wisdom and the spirit with which he spoke. If you want a good book on this subject, check out Gavin Ortland’s The Art of Disagreeing, how to keep calm and stay friends and hard conversations.
I also recommend if you want to elevate substance and argument over rhetoric and style, check out debate books like the Zondervin Point Counterpoint series and similar books where you can learn about theological subjects in debates that focus on the arguments. Thank you so much for watching and don’t forget to support us at trenthornpodcast.com and to register for our upcoming conference in Dallas on April 11th at conferenceoftrent.com. So thank you guys so much and I hope you have a very blessed day.