What did I expect? A journalist conducting a debate to be honest about the outcome, to not try to spin it in one direction,  and to report it without a tinge of yellow.

Moderating a debate requires that you leave your personal bias at the front door. Your premise seems to be that we should have expected nightline to spin it.  This belies your ignorance about debate and the expected conduct of a moderator. When the moderator is given editorial power, his responsiblity is increased dramatically.

Bashir has discredited himself to moderate any future debates.  If you don't understand why, then I suggest you start here....

http://www.idebate.org/thepeoplespeak/documents/TPSToolkit2006.pdf

 Then you're naive beyond belief.  TV programs are about ratings, nothing else. 

No, son.  It belies your ignorance about TV and the way the world works. 

Do you really live in la la land?

I understand the principles of deabte.  I also understand that don't get a level playing field a lot of the time.  Considering this I thought the RRS guys did pretty well.

So, please, spare us the wounded democracy bollocks.  This is real life.

 First, don't call me 'son' you smarmy little prick. I am probably old enough to be your father.

Wether TV's bias reflects 'real life' or not isn't the point which again flew right over your head.

 Any debate, whether televised or not, REQUIRES that the moderator act in a certain fashion. That tv journalists violate this requirement is not a surprise, but I felt it important enough to point out and discuss. That the debate was such a one sided victory and was portrayed as at best a draw on nightline, is a very good topic for this forum. Bashir did an okay job of moderating the debate until he got into editorial mode, where he dropped the ball, reflected his personal bias, and ultimately lied about the outcome.  This wasn't a draw by anyone's assessment.  Bashir wasn't just spinning when he stated that, he was lying....  Even sworn enemies of the RR squad are declaring it a victory  for Brian and Kelly. 

Lastly,  You haven't earned the right to come on here and be condescending...so stick it up your arse.

My partner was shocked to see the way that they edited the debate for general consumption.  Having watched the bits on their web site she and I were out right dumbfounded when they did everything they could to make it seem like Ray and Kirk hadn't been solidly trounced.

the debate sucked. not many seats and not many of them filled. i'm sure the atheists won convincingly, they always win debates, and it's too bad nightline made it look "close."

what was the deal with cameron's pictures of bullfrogs and other conjoined animals? was that supposed to be a sincere argument against evolution? nightline must have shown it out of context because it made no sense.

i'm confused, are the two atheists really named sapient and (i forget her weird dungeons and dragons name)? i hope not.

her cleavage undermines the atheist point of view in the same way a gay guy in a g string at the pride parade ruins it for the normal gays. her red hair and overall goth/suicide girl look is not helping things. i don't care if that's who she is, if that's who she is, then pick someone else to be the face of atheism.

and the atheist guy seems creepy. there is something kind of joe francis about him. and he dates the goth chick, right?

i resent these two. no one was willing to step up and be THE atheist, so we are left with these two zeros. kind of like how blacks are stuck with jackson and sharpton. (it was funny when goth/cleavage chick got tongue tied in the debate and tried to work her way out of it and ended up stammering something about "....you know, history.&quot

maybe ricky gervais, christopher hitchens, bill maher or david cross will decide to put you guys out of business one day and make a better website. one that doesn't ask people to donate money to it, which by the way is one of the more unattractive aspects of religion.

you guys are creepy.

I see both sides here. The bottom line is that this was a tv show, and as such, cleavage (or what I prefer to refer to as "heavenly firmament&quot is just as appropriate as Kirk Cameron's appearance and their duck-and-crocodile show they trotted out. There was a fair amount of farce in play. Both sides took things seriously, but each side didn't take the other seriously, and I personally found that wildly entertaining.

I'm not sure what people expected.... Brian and Killy to convince Comfort to abandon religion? IMO, the show was incredibly helpful regardless of who "won" -- it is helping push the debate on religion and its value into the mainstream. This is ultimately the best we can hope for at this point (since atheists are such a minority). We don't really even need to win the argument to score a huge victory. Any time scrutiny is applied to mythology, rationality wins.

In reality, the ONLY way Comfort and Cameron could have won is if they would have been able to convert Brian and Kelly to christianity on live TV.  Anything short of that was a failure.  And ironically, their ego; their need for attention and power and influence has served as the key to open the door to shine light on the fantasy that is religion.  Let them think they won.  Let them invite more atheists into the spotlight to debate issues.  This is a win-win situation for free thinkers.

If this post is a duplicate, my apologies.

If we consider only the initial focus of the debate which was ostensibly for Ray and Kirk to prove the existence of God then the mistakes made by Killy and Sapient were excusable because the godbotherers failed. However the debate was not restricted to the initial focus. The vast majority of the debate was Killy and Sapient defending themselves against the Kirk and Ray show. Instead of pressing their advantage, Killy and Sapient let Kirk and Ray take the offence. This was a mistake.

Most of the comments made by Kirk and Ray were opportunities missed to show how dishonest creationists such as Kirk and Ray really are. Kirk made a number of quote mines, expressed some obvious scientific disinformation, and made claims that have been debunked so frequently they are famous. Both Killy and Sapient showed a horrible lack of science knowledge.

Please, people, before you take on any more slick, skilled con men such as Kirk and Ray, take the time to hone your skills at places like talkorigins and RichardDawkins.net. People like K&R will always focus on evolution, it is important that everyone, including you, learn as much about evolution and how to counter creationist arguments in that field as possible. They are as much anti-science as they are anti-atheist, they will alway bring science into the argument. If you do not have a command of the subjectyou will come off looking like you are unprepared and out of your league, which is exactly what happened during the last half of the debate.

You have available many resources on the web, including hundreds of scientists and lay people with years of experience debating YECs and IDiots. Use those resources.

 {mod edit: deleted double post}

Actually, most of us here consider ourselves "agnostic atheists" because we don't know if a god exists or not.

I will think for you. 

Indeed.  

The smarmy prick comment came after your condenscending remarks, only after I pointed out you seem a bit ignorant on how debate works.

FYI, saying someone is ignorant about something is not an insult to an educated person.  We are all ignorant...calling someone stupid is an insult, but ignorant only denotes that you haven't been exposed to whatever is being discussed.  I still think you are either ignorant of how debate works, or you missed my point entirely.

That being said...apology accepted.    Your opinions are as valid as anyone else's here, but we all have a long history together and coming to a new board and insulting people is not a good way to gain crediblity.  Why don't we start over?

The point I was making, again..is that Bashir slanted the outcome of the debate with creative editing, that Bashir has a background in creative editing and also is a 'devoted' christian, ...and that it sucks that he did that, and it really disqualifies him from holding himself out as a debate moderator.  Hell, he didn't even have a cross examination period in the debate.  His editing and final product was a horrid hack job and clearly he was doing damage control for 'his' side...the christians.

He should in the future just call them discussions.  That would be more appropriate.  The original debate was moderated okay (I wouldn't say  good because again..he didn't do it right) but to call the final product that ended up on nightline a debate is an insult to the entire debating process.

Since when is "Kelly" a D&D name?  Is there a fifth-level orc named Kelly that I'm not aware of?  I shall have to consult my husband's vast D&D library and find out.

FYI, Brian "Sapient" and Kelly don't use their real names because asswipe Christians who follow Jesus's gospel of love and acceptance like to threaten them with physical harm because they don't believe in the living Christ.  Nice.  I'd use a pseudonym, too. 

Edited:  Since everybody's friends again, no need for a sassy comment from gary7.

I'll just say, INTERNETS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS. 

Brain and Kelly definitely won the debate. Hands down I can say that.

The premise of the debate was to prove the existence of god through scientific evidence--no biblical evidence can be provided.

First of all, Kirk and the other christian man contradicted themselves by saying that they would prove the existence of god without the bible. The first point in their argument, they made reference to the ten commandments. I mean common on----that is all they had.

I did not agree with the way Nightline introduced both sides in the beginning. It is really misleading to the average "sheep-like" person. They showed Kirk side as the evangelistic side, and that RRS was the rebellious controversial side. It's my opinion, and I don't know if anyone else saw that.

Another thing, in Kirk's closing arugment---this man has no idea what he is talking about by the way---He says that Albert Einstein was a christian. WTF, Albert Einstein wrote books speaking about how he was an atheist. Does Kirk only read the bible and no other books?

Once again, kudoes to Kelly and Brian. They are very articulate----I admire them; they are more patient than I would have been to debate Christians like Kirk Cameron anyways.

Peace!!

LOL! Dammit, just when I had decided to stop making avatars and icons for today, and I had to see this... This would be a good one. It's also quick and to the point... It'd work for an animated AIM icon. Grrr... FOR LATER. I will do that LATER... 

The "crew" is free to call anyone a "smarmy little prick?"

Brian, this is why so many infidels avoid your site. Ad hominem attacks are not "rational." Neither is playing the capitalist card. Anyone reading this response is going to assume you're censoring opinion. It's a natural inference.

Congratulations on your national exposure.

Overall, your performance was good, though it was obvious you don't have the "camera" feel of a professional actor like Cameron. As a suggestion, you might want to watch your performance again, but this time with the audio turned off. I agree with those who feel Kelly should have considered more substantial attire. Sure, she's a hottie, but when we're transixed by her breasts we're not listening to her presentation. This is one of the very first lessons women learn in a corporate environment.

Facial expressions on television must be practiced as carefully as you research your positions. Keep in mind that your audience is not on the stage. When you show annoyance with your debate opponents, it will be seen as annoyance toward the audience.

These are intended as constructive criticisms.

I've "seen" your encounter with WTF radio as posted on the WTF site.  I'd describe it as unfortunate.  It pays to keep in mind that the battle is not over until you're back within the castle.  You let him get you angry. Don't worry, we're sure you'll do better next time.

The "Jesus Myth" position is unnecessarily controversial, hence the groans. It relies on too much that must be taken on "faith."  While it may be correct, it is not parsimonious.  I say "unnecessarily" because there are far simpler and more pointed criticisms of the Jesus portrayed in the bible, just as rational but not subject to airy dismissals.

Rather than pushing evidence for a total fabrication, it is enough to point out the more blatant evidences of individual fabrications, those that do not require extensive scholarship. The same death that can come at a single blow can also come from a thousand cuts.

People don't walk on water. *slice*

Stars don't hover over villages. *slice*

Humans are not gods. *slice* (My personal favorite, by the way.)

These are lines that become more powerful with repetition, *slice, slice, slice*, expressing home truths that require no substantiation. 

You can't educate people in an on-air debate. For that we have classrooms. That's not how science is done either. For that we have laboratories and professional journals. The best you can hope for is to remind them of things they already know, but haven't put together with their religious faith in order to spot the contradictions.

A public debate is an exercise in public relations. You have to be friendly! Smile at the camera. Paste concern for fellow humans on your pan. Tell the WTF dudes a joke. Never let them see you sweat. Exude confidence without arrogance. Make us proud. You're not just there for yourself, you're representing our entire community.

Good luck on your future campaigns.

As ever, Jesse

No worries, Glenn, though I object to the suggestion I was defending anyone. For all I know, you're both smarmy little pricks. *insert smiley* I chose to respond to Brian's post so as to avoid that suggestion.

I defend the principle that we should "write for the lurkers." I introduced that principle primarily to segue into my more general point, that debates are primarly for the audience, and should be approached with that overall objective in mind.

It's a point that was not lost on the WTF jock. Do you think he gives a crap about facing down an atheist, personally? No, he's looking for a reaction that will play well when broadcast. That's what he got, too. It was a pro move. The last we see of Brian on the WTF video is an angry man in retreat muttering threats.  That was unfortunate.

Understand these are intended as positive criticisms. 

Imagine if Brian, when braced by WTF dude, had instead reached over and extended his hand for a shake, with an implacable smile plastered across his mug, complementing him on his tie, asking him where he got his hair done?

That's how you play hostile interviewers.

 Speaking of hostile interviewers, I'm due back to respond to the latest round from the Cameron Fan Club.  He's posting Christianity Today interviews now.

*smacks head*

 Some other time, then.

As ever, Jesse 

Uh, whoops! Sorry about that, "Glenn,"

Damn, and I'm usually so careful about that.

The temptation is to gloss over mistakes, do a few high fives and pop some beers, and I can't say that's not justified. C&C were slaughtered. But they came over more likable. So at the end of the day, what score goes up on the board?

Brian and Kelly have had a couple days to unwind now, so I think it's time to look forward and figure out how to do better. As English speakers, unless we're working out of Sweden, the chances are any country we're in is going to be predominantly christian. That's the "environment" we need to recognize. Check the sales figures between "Letter to a Christian Nation" and "Left Behind, part 217, Thunderdome" or whatever their latest is.

We've got two audiences. Forgive me if I talk like a media wonk, but five years as a research director for Telemundo/Chicago have left their mark on how I look at television. Worse, everything goes through the "market" filter. The natural growth market for atheist activists are those who are already atheist, but inactive. (For Telemundo it's Hispanics who don't watch Spanish TV.) The "blasphemy challenge" was brilliant from a targeting perspective.

I really liked the "I am not afraid" tagline.

But the largest potential market by a salivation factor are the christians who'd like to cast off the cobwebs of supernaturalism without having to give up their, I don't know, call it "moral" character. (For Telemundo it's ... well, it's dubiously analagous, but it's there.) Nightline should have been perfect for that. I think there'll be other chances. We did get a second chance at Paula Zahn, didn't we? They can't ignore us if we don't let them.

Friel? Never heard of him before, but it didn't take much to catch the smarmy. I'd have gone for the hair. That's got to be one of his weak spots. Fucker's too vain by half. That's an advantage. These guys can be played. Find out his favorite sports team and hand him a team ballcap. Get the names of his kids, and ask him how they're doing in school.  Schmooze.

Did you see O'Reilly's last performance on Letterman? Like him or recognize him for the loofah-wanking seat-cover sniffer he is, it was brilliant. He came in cracking jokes; every barb from Dave was played off as locker-room towel-snapping from his barbecue buddy. He couldn't be cracked.

That's how you handle a hostile interviewer.

This isn't just about Brian and Kelly, either. So long as we're surrounded by a hostile culture, we can't crack either. When your boss gives you crap in the hallway, letting the whole office know you're an atheist, be ready. "Atheist? I believe in more gods than you do! I just don't think they're real." Yes, that really happened. And I got away with it, too, made him crack a grin. Your girlfriend's folks want to have a "talk" with you about your religion, prepare. Turn it to your advantage. Talk them into a book-reading exchange.

I'm not talking about getting by, I'm talking about winning.

Speaking of winning, it looks like the shreds of that Christianity Today puff-piece need stirring. Fan Club's trying to tape them back together.

As ever, Jesse