Top 3 BEST Apologetics Debates!

Knock knock knock.

Hey there.

It's Nate Sala.

Got another video for you.

You want to let me in?

Welcome back to another debate teacher reacts video.

We are going to do something a little bit special.

Okay for this particular kind of video I've invited my good friend the one and only Nicholas Cage

say hi to the family Nicholas.

Let's go.

Let's go.

I'm bored.

Let's go.

That was unkind.

I don't know where he got up on the wrong side of the bed as a pillow.

Look what here's what we're gonna do today.

Okay, I'm wearing my glasses to let you know that we're gonna be critically thinking.

But I'm also wearing this shirt to let you know that I'm ready to party.

And so let's do both on August the 2nd 2020 I Posted the

first ever debate teacher video reacts, right?

Yeah.

That's right.

Yeah, give it up right now.

We just got out of doing another video where we celebrated 2 ,000 subscribers, so this is really exciting.

I just want to keep keep it going for one more video now for those of you that voted for the next debate.

Stay with me.

Okay, don't I don't want to lose you stick around.

Okay, but I just want to step and pause.

Come off to the side here and just do something a little bit fun, which is I want to acknowledge man.

It's been one year since the debate teacher reacts video series.

There are 17 videos in this particular series.

Not all of them are debates though.

Hmm.

Anyway, I'm having a lot of fun doing them.

It looks like that you all are engaging with them and that's awesome.

I love it.

I love it.

So here's what I want to do.

I want to go back and I want to look at some of my favorite debates the ones that I super enjoyed doing over the last 12

months and maybe zoom in and talk about some of my favorite moments of Those particular debates and

just have a little fun with it.

But here's the deal.

We're gonna press on.

We're gonna continue to make more and I'm just so excited that you are along with me for this ride.

But for now, let's go ahead and take a look at some of my favorite moments the favorite debates of the last

year.

Is this you trying to figure out who won the last apologetics debate?

My name is Nate Sala, I'm the president of a Christian apologetics ministry called the clear lens and before I jump into ministry.

Right.

So look at that handsome devil.

This was a different studio altogether.

Different setup all together.

I kind of missed the Star Trek poster and the Greek column.

And the layers of lights and stuff.

I don't know.

I I like the simplicity of my background now.

Anyway, you guys tell me which you think is a better background.

But it was a different studio and it was a different organization name.

I said this before but eight years ago The ministry got started.

It was a simple blog and it was just me and shortly thereafter.

Some people came in who became part of the team and originally we called ourselves a clear

lens because everybody operates through a

particular worldview lens and so if your lens is.

Not.

Shaped by the Christian worldview then there's some smudges on it.

There's some things that you're not seeing there's some things that are obscured and Because Christianity is

true and so Christianity then provides the clearest worldview lens through which and by which to live

and see and Experience the world in all of reality.

So we called ourselves a clear lens.

Here's the problem.

Nobody understood that.

So like especially in that first three to five seconds of trying to figure out who we are as an organization.

Nobody's gonna get all of that.

And so here here we are an established organization we became a you know non -profit

501c3 a few years in or several years in and we're getting these emails from like optometrist

conventions of names of donors to see if we want to like get the list of names in.

Probably because they assume that we make contact lenses or something.

It was really bizarre.

And so after a while, we're like, you know, we got to change the name.

And so that's how a clear lens became wise disciple, but in these first videos we were still calling ourselves a clear lens.

So the I taught debate.

So if you're looking for some clear principles and ways to determine a real winner for apologetics debates, then you've come to the right

place clear lens.

Let me also let me also say something else, you know in the beginning nobody knew what I was up to I.

The idea for this was almost by accident jumping into ministry was not on my mind that hey somehow I could look

back and incorporate something that I was doing at The public high school

could somehow benefit the ministry, you know and but I was just trying to think

outside the box and one day I was like You know, I wouldn't be fun if and that's where this idea

came from.

But in the beginning nobody was watching these.

I think I was lucky to get maybe 50 views or something like that or whatever I was trying to spark the algorithm.

So that's where you get this little trailer with you know Mo and or was it curly from the Three

Stooges and you know all these things I'm trying to see if I could get people's attention so they could become aware of the series.

The topic is theodicy God and suffering.

That's a little vague.

It's not quite clear what exactly the opponents will be arguing for and against.

I'm assuming that Dinesh D'Souza will take the position because you usually end up if the topic is worded

much more clearly.

You get a better More clear set of criteria in terms of thinking about the debate and what the

roles of each debate opponent are so for example the existence of evil.

Proves there is a God right?

Well, then clearly we understand what Dinesh D'Souza's role would be and what Bart Ehrman's role would be in this debate

because Dinesh D'Souza would argue the AF and Bart Ehrman should take the neg or the

negative position on that and so that's a little bit more clear than Theodicy God and suffering.

It's like well, okay, like what are we gonna?

What are they gonna talk about exactly or how are they going to clash?

Specifically they did a fine job.

I'm just saying it's better if the topic is worded better, right?

You suggested that somebody who suffers now may experience a billion years of

Happiness in the afterlife and that therefore I'm not looking at the whole of Christian theology

only at a very small sliver and You said that I would

prefer that we all lead a hedonist life here on earth.

I guess I want to know whether you believe in hell and whether people are

punished in hell and whether it's an eternal punishment and Whether God loves the people

who are suffering eternal punishment in hell, I'm especially thinking of Somebody who is not a

Christian who has gone through horrible suffering here in this world and then

dies and Suffers torment for billions.

This is a good strategy.

So I want to know whether you believe that and if so how that relates to your understanding of God, right?

What a great question from Bart Ehrman.

And the thing is, I mean, you know from my perspective He his presupposition is flawed in the way

that he's asking if there's an assumption that he's making that is flawed.

And.

Dinesh should be able to Handle this in in his response

because this is why I chose the video.

I respect a level of discourse that is Intellectually Difficult that is,

you know, it's it's robust.

It provides some punches some powerful punches and the thing is

Purely from a pathos perspective.

This is a powerful rhetorical question and Bart Ehrman is trying to get at the

heart of one of Dinesh D'Souza's contentions in his opener by saying well Okay, let's talk about hell then.

That's a great that's a really great question and let's see you how Dinesh response the Christian view of God

is that God is.

Salvation right.

The Bible says salvation is the gift of God.

Now for many years I used to think that the Bible was saying that salvation is the gift From God,

but no doesn't say that salvation is the gift of God.

God is the gift God is the gift.

Now we as human beings have the free choice of Saying yes

to the gift or no.

So easy as God made it that all we have to do no matter what the wreckage of our lives No matter what the

sins we've committed. All we have to do is utter the word.

Yes, that's it.

That's the only prerequisite for salvation that does it.

So if someone says no in the face of a yes, and you

may enter sign and If God himself is salvation To

say no to God is to say no to what God is.

That is my definition of hell.

If God is goodness purity beauty truth, and you say no to God you are cutting yourself

off Voluntarily from those divine attributes by your own

will.

Yeah.

So this is this is the CS Lewis right on skynet, you know Hell is I was just gonna say that you handsome devil,

you know, this is the the CS Lewis Sort of characterization of held, you know, the gates of

hell are locked from the inside kind of a thing.

Here's why I chose this as I think my first fate.

I don't think these are in order Specifically but one of my all -time favorites, it's the level of discourse.

The level of discourse was so great and What that betrays in my opinion besides the

fact that you know, I think it's clear as day to me that Dinesh D'Souza Has

been in a few debates probably had a background in in college.

I don't know about Bart Ehrman, but You know, they they handle themselves.

Well, it betrays the fact that they know their stuff that they spent time in their

research and prep before the debate maybe they I don't know, but maybe they did some

roleplay and Had a fake interlocutor get up and have them go back and forth so that they could be best

prepared in regular circumstances if a non -believer Asks a Christian

the question that Bart Ehrman just asked in light of the discussion that they're having About theodicy God and

suffering how many Christians are really going to be ready to answer that in the way that Dinesh

D'Souza did and I'm just saying a lot of Christians don't really think these things through and that's

where.

This is so valuable.

I think easy answers in the face of real suffering are cruel.

I think when you Have your son Commit suicide

Or your daughter get killed by a drunk driver Or your

wife die Because of an aneurysm That

The simple comfort of don't worry.

They're in heaven now Really doesn't go very far.

I think it's a platitude.

Now look look at something else here, too.

I bet a lot of people in that debate walked out of there thinking Bart Ehrman won.

Okay, and if I remember this right, I don't.

I don't think I adjudicated as such.

I think I said D'Souza won.

Which by the way if you're brand new to this and you're thinking you're and you're a skeptic and you're thinking yourself.

Of course, you would you're a Christian you're biased and not out the Christians win.

In every single Video that I've done you got to go back and watch the series.

But anyways, I bet a lot of people walked out thinking that Ehrman won and the reason they did

really does come down to A couple of key things.

So if you're thinking about debate and you're thinking about how to put my best foot forward.

It really does come down to a couple of key things and number one.

You really need to speak with confidence.

The confidence then betrays the level of knowledge that you have in your particular subject matter.

Okay, because if you speak with confidence you develop what's called ethos.

Ethos pathos and logos is something that you should be thinking about and considering as you go into a debate.

Okay, it sounds manipulative for some but that's just the bottom line.

Ethos you should be you should be thinking about how to speak in a manner that reinforces your credibility

and I mean a tone I mean the way that you present in terms of your non -verbals, you know.

Also, you should be thinking about the the content that you have and the sources that you cite in order to then

also reinforce your credibility, right but there is a way that you further your sense of credibility

simply by the way you speak and Ehrman is doing a really good job of

Speaking rhetorically persuasively in other words, he's taking this seriously.

He's speaking very concerned in a very concerned manner.

And he's appealing over and over and over again, and this is the second thing that I want to point out is he's appealing to

Things that are rhetorically persuasive in the area of pathos in the area of

passion emotion, right.

Connecting with the audience in a manner that will elicit those kinds of emotional reactions and

connect on that pathos level.

He's doing that really well.

Now in my opinion it comes down to the content of what he's actually saying and and

you know in that way he didn't really hold up to D'Souza, but Imagine if you were a

debater and you were putting your best foot forward and you had all of those things all three Thrusters turned all

the way up.

This is what I'm talking about when it comes to debate.

These are the kinds of things that need to go into it.

So I really did enjoy this debate between D'Souza and Ermin.

It's one of those ones where You really need to pay close attention to what's being said and how it's being said in order to figure out who won.

The suck it up buttercup.

So apparently this is me in my Tony Stark phase where I hit puberty and

decided that I was going to try to have some kind of some kind of stash

and and a soul patch and.

Actually, I think I was trying to grow something out because we were gonna do a costume party.

And I needed a thick mustache or something.

And anyway, I love I love looking back in the yearbook and seeing that awful haircut.

That's the best feeling in the world total cringe part of that actually trades on the principles of debate.

Now, why is that the case?

Well because before I jumped into ministry, I actually taught debate.

So I'm looking forward to getting into this specific apologetics debate.

It's John.

Some of you have asked the question, you know, like What was that like, what was it like teaching debate?

What was you know, tell me about all that stuff.

How do you get into debate?

The thing is like you don't go to school to learn to teach debate.

That was not my experience here in Las Vegas.

I have a couple of degrees.

And so my experience was I started out and I got a degree in theology.

But then I quickly learned that teaching was kind of more my thing and so I started thinking about public

school teaching and.

So I had to go back and get enough English credits to to get The content

knowledge for a degree in English so that I could teach English because the two things I taught primarily were literature

and debate.

In public high school, and so I never ended up getting the degree for English.

I didn't defer to get the degree because I think it was like I don't know how much money.

But I got all the credits for that and then I went and got my master's in curriculum and instruction.

And so that's my graduate degree but I just it just set me up to start teaching

literature at public high school level well one of the the debate teacher at my second

school.

Quit she was retiring and so they needed somebody to take over the debate program

at the school.

So we called it forensics because it's not just debate.

It's also speech and debate and so I didn't really have I had a little bit of

background in debate because of you know things that I had learned in school my own.

Studies outside of school, but I didn't know anything about you know speech, you know.

So here I come and I got these kids with these scripts for like a humorous interpretation, you know.

And I'm like what what is what?

But in terms of debate I felt like I was knowledgeable and so that's what That's

what I did.

I volunteered to take over somebody who was retiring and I took over the program and taught students about logical

fallacies and had a lot.

Of.

You know drills and one of the things primarily.

So somebody else asked me a question like what did you do to prepare your students?

For.

Debate one of the things that I so there's not one thing, right?

But one of the things that I did was I was able to get transcripts of previous debates and I had my

students Look at the words of the arguments that were being made so that they could

visually see.

Like on paper what was being argued so that they could then try to figure out how to respond.

Those were the first things was just trying to figure out where is the argument, you know annotating a transcript of a debate?

And so if you're thinking to yourself, you know, how do I get started?

I want to I want to you know get better at debate, but I don't know where to begin.

That's one of the things that I would suggest you do if you can it's even if they're presidential debates.

You know that would benefit you quite a bit in my opinion.

I mean if this mechanism that you talk about which doesn't account for the origin of life at all, but let's

leave that aside if it is so Phenomenally clever then it itself

is giving evidence that there's a mind behind it.

The whole point of Darwinian natural selection is that it works without design without

foresight.

But that's an assumption.

No, it's not an assumption.

That is exactly how it works.

Before before Darwin came along it looked perfectly obvious that even if evolution happened there must be some

guiding force to tell Animals or plants how they ought to evolve.

Natural selection is a blind force.

The things that survive survive.

With hindsight we can see that the ones that survive are the ones that are good at surviving.

They have the genes that make them survive.

I'm looking at my angry resting face.

Is that really how I look?

Every now and then, you know, I've known my wife now what 13 years and

Every now and then I'm thinking of something and it looks like I may and

she will look at me.

What's what's Nate what's wrong just what just tell me what's

wrong.

And it's like well, no wonder.

I mean look at that.

Look at that.

Look at those brows.

They're so angry.

I have angry resting face.

I blame my father and the whole Samoan community look Richard Dawkins, you know, am I remembering this right like William Lane Craig

wanted to debate Dawkins or Somebody said they should and

Dawkins said no way or something.

Am I am I crazy?

Am I remembering that right that I feel like that's in there.

Although my old man brain May be a little incorrect with that but the point is you don't see too much

interaction like a formal debate between somebody like a William Lane Craig and a Richard Dawkins and

You wanted to this is what we wanted to seize but particularly with cross -examination or something like that, but instead

Dawkins Hangs out with John Lennox who also is extremely intelligent.

But if I remember correctly in this video, I said Lennox lost Lennox lost and this is

one of those reasons if you look at what Dawkins is doing he's holding his own

because Lennox is not really punching him very hard and so Dawkins gets to

say things that technically are not incorrect.

They're not out of the realm of Good response in a

manner that it provides pushback that is appropriate and So even in this particular

little challenge that Lennox provided all Dawkins needed to do from his perspective is

define Evolution and he defines evolution and he's correct about his definition of

evolution and so Dawkins is doing pretty well Handling himself here and

I was impressed so for a lot of Christians out there who are like, ah Richard Dawkins What a fool the thing

is you don't just get a PhD because you're an idiot.

So Dawkins held his own here I thought he did a really good job Lennox was holding back

or just wasn't up to the challenge on that particular day now.

I heard that Lennox did a better job at another debate that was either just before this or just after this.

So you'll be the judge right you go and take a look at these debates and.

You can figure this out.

Is there a God and has he revealed himself?

And that's where again, I think this pettiness needs to be pushed aside because I

Can't get to know you as a person.

You're not just a scientific object.

I can look at you through a Telescope or a magnifying glass I could even dissect you and so on and

so forth.

But because you are a person yummy I cannot get to know you unless you're prepared to reveal yourself to

me.

So the fact that the Claim

of Christ to be the truth to be God incarnate.

That makes perfect sense to me because if there is a God who invented this wonderful marvelous

universe with all its science and all the rest then He has taken the initiative in

getting to know us and Revealing himself to us and he's revealed himself to us at the level we can

understand.

We're persons.

He's a person that at least makes sense.

So one of the very important questions to ask is is that really true or is this

simply myth and fantasy?

Well myth and fantasy for me.

What what was the point of that?

Whole exercise right now some of you have come out and said in the comments.

You know what?

He was really trying to reach the heart of Richard Dawkins and that I think at least

acknowledges something that should be true for us all which is that If you're gonna really talk

to somebody if you're going to try to appeal to somebody and persuade don't do it in a debate style.

I've said this many times.

I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face.

Don't go into your interactions with people treating it like a formal debate because you won't change anybody's mind.

Because people will just get solidified in their own view.

They'll fold their arms Though their eyes will glaze up and they'll just check out on you.

Okay?

So maybe that's what he was trying to do.

That's what the problem is.

He was in a venue where debate and strong Disagreement should take

place.

And so I think in my opinion He did not do what he should in that right in that proper venue.

It was a missed opportunity complete waste and I think John Richard Dawkins won because of

that.

All right got the new intro Welcome back to another debate teacher reacts video

coming at you right now.

Look, if you're brand new to this entire channel, my name is Nate and I'm very glad that you are here.

Definitely check out videos in this channel so I chose this particular video because For the same reason that I

chose all the other ones.

Which is these are the ones where the level of discourse is the strongest and that's what I like to see.

Okay, I don't like to see somebody come in and try to you know, weasel their way out of

doing the hard work and Thinking through and really wrestling with the topic to the

best of their ability.

I was really impressed by I think I said this in the Q &A but the back -and -forth between

Dr. Shelley Kagan and William Lane Craig Particularly so watch this.

Example, I thought this was really great.

So so one of the things that you said in your opening remarks what you quoted.

Several people.

I think there was a long quote from Michael Ruse saying something like if naturalism is true.

So the reason I chose this particular video is because I think this is an example of one of Kagan's best sort of

jabs or punches to William Lane Craig and So I'm gonna play it.

But before I do I just want to make mention and I think I did this in the video as well Kagan is referring to

notes.

It is so vitally important that you flow your opponent's opening statement and that you draw

from it in order to attack it in cross -examination to create clash and Kagan does this really well?

You all should do this, you know this thing and we saw this in other debates where

You bring up something that really wasn't mentioned in the opening.

That's not a good strategy.

And I know so for like the novice right there.

They're thinking to themselves Well, I'm gonna surprise my interlocutor and I'm gonna I'm gonna get them and they're gonna get stuck

stuttering and all that stuff.

Well, no, they're not because if they know what they're doing and you try to bring in something that wasn't mentioned in the opening.

They're going to say hey, I never addressed this in my opening statement.

What's wrong with you?

And It's as simple as that.

So it's really Important it's imperative that you flow your

opponent's opening statements that you keep track of those and you determine quickly

what you're going to attack the kinds of questions that you're going to pose in order to expose flaws and

inconsistencies in the contentions in your interlocutors opener and Draw that out in

cross -examination.

So Kagan did that and I just I really commend everybody to do that true.

Atheism is false then ethics is illusory.

Deeper meaning is illusory.

It's not an exact quote.

But but I think those phrases were there and I found that an interesting slide or so it

seemed to me.

The move from ethics is illusory to deeper meaning is illusory.

Fine.

I believe that Humans are just creatures that evolved on this tiny little speck of dust.

But I don't see how the denial of deeper meaning should give me any reason to think.

Therefore I'm committed to ethics as illusory.

So perhaps you could explain that.

Where that came in I think was with respect to so I mean just from an

outsider's perspective.

And being a little familiar with this kind of stuff.

It's clear that Craig in my opinion was caught a little flat -footed.

So I didn't know this stuff.

I mentioned this before but you know I mean, I I never saw the Shelly Kagan or William Lane Craig.

Shelly Kagan debate before I did a debate reaction and Some of you did you knew

you guys know, you know a lot more about these than I do.

But you knew what was going on like behind the scenes what happened afterwards?

So apparently William Lane Craig came out and said well the venue the the people that put on this particular thing.

They asked me not to really push too hard.

So this really wasn't supposed to be a debate.

It was supposed to be more an informal discussion and it looks like Kagan didn't get that memo.

And so Kagan's pushing pretty hard, but here's the other thing that's interesting.

What Kagan is arguing for in the debate is not it's not actually his view.

I looked into it and Kagan wrote a whole book before this debate on ethics and

Probably William Lane Craig in order to prepare to go up against Kagan.

Read that book and familiarized himself with the way that he believed Kagan was going to argue turns out.

That's not how Kagan argued.

And so those elements right those two alone.

Probably caught William Lane Craig a little flat -footed and He's rolling with it.

He's William Lane Craig.

Okay, so he's a really great debater, but you can I think you can see that he had a little tough time here.

It seemed to me that on a naturalistic worldview.

Everything.

Is ultimately destined to destruction and the heat death of the universe.

As the universe expands it grows colder and colder as its Energy is used up.

Eventually, all the stars will burn out all matter will collapse into dead stars and black

holes.

There will be no life.

No heat no light only the corpses of dead stars and galaxies expanding into

endless darkness.

And in light of that end It's it's hard for me to understand how our moral choices have

any sort of significance.

There's no moral accountability.

The universe is neither better nor worse for what we do.

That ultimately there isn't.

Our moral lives become Vacuous there's because they don't have that kind of cosmic significance.

I still need to have you explain that for me better because again, it seems to me.

It's one thing to say it lacks eternal cosmic Everlasting significance.

It's another thing to say it lacks significance.

In fact to give one of your examples you you talked about Okay, I remember the source of this the torturers was a Nazi

torturers.

Yeah, you say, you know, if theism isn't true, then it doesn't really matter.

This strikes me as I'm sorry.

It's I'm sure it's going to sound rude, but strikes me as an outrageous thing to suggest.

It doesn't really matter.

Surely it matters to the torture victims whether they're being tortured.

It doesn't require that this makes some Cosmic difference to the eternal significance of the universe for

to matter whether a human being is tortured it matters to them.

It matters to their family.

It matters to us.

So again, how do you move from the lack of eternal significance to the thought that if it doesn't have eternal

significance?

And that's probably one of the best ways that I've seen of somebody coming

from.

You know the position that Christianity is not true.

God is not necessary for morality.

To give pushback in this particular argument, which is to say well.

Meaning is meaning whether it has ultimate meaning or not, you know I mean, that's the best that you could possibly

do for my fuller responses here.

You should definitely go back and watch this video if you haven't seen it.

But I will say that the reason why I chose these particular videos again is because

these are the best examples of going back and forth and having a robust volley so to speak of

Pushback of clash and I really enjoy watching these kinds of things and I

think that these kinds of videos Are the most thought -provoking?

Because they're the most rigorous for you all out there whether you're Christian or non -christian.

This venture this enterprise of looking at debates really does need to come down to.

Genuinely seeking truth.

It's not about your guy Slapping the other guy around and if it is then you're wasting

your time watching debates like this.

Okay, and you're furthering your own bias.

The whole point of debate is to really wrestle with these arguments.

No matter who says them and and to be able to have the ability in your own mind of the discernment.

To realize when the other side says something that should cause you to stop and think for a split second.

This is what I love to see with these kinds of debates and this is why I love to do them it's to see this kind of

level of discourse take place and Really?

It's like to me.

It's like going to a fancy restaurant and ordering a really nice expensive steak and you're not

gonna find that out there on YouTube.

YouTube is not replete with examples of this kind of level of discourse and

so it's on you as a viewer to go and seek those out and to really

listen to what both sides have to say and wrestle with the implications the contentions all of it

all of the arguments and.

And come out the other side really having considered everything that has been offered there.

There is hope ladies and gentlemen.

There really is because I see you as a community out there and I would take it that for those of you

Who are interacting with these videos that is your desire that you are out there and you are trying

to Wrestle with the best arguments in order to get at what is really true.

And so our job is to figure out what that objective reality is.

And so I will continue to make these videos.

I'm very excited.

We made one year.

Let's make another one.

Let's make another year.

I'm still waiting for more of your suggestions because I'm adding all of them to the list and

I will Try to knock them out as as much as possible.

Don't forget our next video is coming up.

But I really appreciate you just taking the time out with me.

To look back over some of my favorite debates some of my favorite moments.

And I hope that in some way these bless you so I will take my leave of you right now.

But I will say see you next time.