I normally don’t care when people leave negative comments. Part of being public with your life means you’re going to get some criticism and, as the axiom goes, haters gonna hate. Fortunately, I’m generally pretty good at separating bad criticism from criticism with merit. Greta actually wonders how I never seem to let it get to me.
However, on the vid of the Texas debate with Matt Dillahunty, there are a couple people ragging on me. There are just as many saying I rocked, but the raggers are saying everything from I flat out sucked to that I looked nervous and stumbled. As Matt said…
JT and I talked strategy ahead of time and I tried to prepare for all possibilities . So the amount that JT had to talk in order to address their points was directly proportional to the number of points they raised. Whereas my job in the first debate was pretty easy: talk about the subject at a meta level that undercut the very fact that they were even attempting to argue this. Apart from the time spent measuring philosophical penises with Sloan (which HAD to be done), I had it pretty easy (which was good, as I got sick right before the debate).
The follow-up debate with Jay [Lucas] is one where I was on my own, so I prepared to, essentially, do my job and JT’s job. That’s a daunting task. Fortunately, my opponent didn’t force me to answer a ton of arguments.
I liked both debates and thought that JT did a great job (and probably a better job than I did during that debate, because his job required more on-the-fly effort).
That said, I liked the format of the second one better – and I want more of the direct, conversational questioning.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens to Chris DiCarlo and I next weekend.
Anyone saying JT sucked, simply doesn’t understand what was going on…and if they think I know more about this than JT, then they should agree with what I just said. Their argument is ultimately self-defeating. Mwahahahaha
He’s right about the format. It could’ve been better.
Anyway, I had to go fast during my rounds because of the strategy we were taking. We were planning on the William Lane Craig approach from the other team of throwing out a gajillion arguments and then harping on the ones we couldn’t get to. That’s what they wound up doing (even a little prematurely). So I was trying to get to as many as I could (all of them, optimally) to give Matt time to take a metaphorical scalpel to them. The pace I had to take caused me to stumble over my words at times. People were interpreting it as nerves, which it wasn’t. I debate all the time and I’m pretty damn comfortable doing it (even alongside one of my debate heroes). It was just trying to get as many of my arguments in as possible while trying to rebut as many of theirs as possible.
Was it my strongest performance? Not at all, and there are things I’ll need to improve on. But I thought I did alright and I certainly think my arguments were tight and I definitely feel we handily won the debate. I don’t know why those comments are bugging me so much, but they are.
Anyway, I put out the call for digital hugs on facebook and the resulting onslaught of virtual hugs put me in a better mood immediately. It moved me to produce a facebook cover more in-keeping with my new, hug-filled mood.
Now I feel better.