Debate Teacher Reacts: William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris

Dr. Harris just became the dog from up. You know what I'm you right? You remember this?

So here's Harris, you know, the topic tonight is are the foundations of moral values natural or supernatural now?

Here's something really interesting about that squirrel What is up everybody?

Welcome back to another debate teacher reacts video now I'm very glad to bring you another one so soon.

So here's what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to Create a routine and that means a new debate teacher video every first and third week of every month

All right And so that's what I'm gonna try to hold to if you're brand new to this particular channel or series.

Welcome. My name is Nate I'm the president of a Christian nonprofit organization called wise disciple and here at wise disciple

We're all about living effectively as Christians in today's culture But before I jumped into ministry like 100 %

I actually taught debate at the high school here in Las Vegas And so I figured hey, why not take a look at apologetics debates from a debate teachers perspective

I think it might be beneficial maybe raise the level of discourse in debates like these So that's what

I intend to do tonight. We are looking at the most viewed apologetics debate of all time on YouTube The most viewed of all time it has to be dr.

Sam Harris versus dr William Lane Craig the God debate And so we're going to jump right in now as you know, if you've seen these in the past I love cross -examination because I think that is key

It's where you get to shine or suck really badly because it brings out clash But here's the thing there is no cross -examination in the debate between Harris and Craig.

So we're gonna do the next best thing I'm going to talk about some highlights from each Interlocutors opening statement.

I'll probably show some of that and then I'd like to zoom in like a laser on rebuttal Because I think that's the next best thing.

So without further ado, let's jump right into the debate So look at the type look at the title here

I put an asterisk next to morality because I couldn't fit the whole title in so the full title according to the moderator is

Are the foundations of moral values? Natural or supernatural? Okay now there's a bit of controversy with that because I think

From the perspective of the audience they walked in assuming that the title of the topic was is good from God alright, but the moderator then got up and said what he said, so That's the nature of the discussion now

Let's go ahead and take a look at a couple of moments from dr. Craig's opening statement

The question before us this evening then is what is the best? Foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties what grounds them what makes certain actions?

Objectively good or evil right or wrong in tonight's debate. I'm going to defend two basic contentions first if God exists then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties and Second if God does not exist then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties

Theism provides a sound foundation for objective moral duties on a theistic view objective moral duties are constituted by God's commands

God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commandments which constitute our moral duties or obligations

Natural science tells us only what is Not what ought to be the case as philosopher

Jerry Fodor is written Science is about facts not norms. It might tell us how we are

But it wouldn't tell us what is wrong with how we are. So dr. Craig does a really great job of Making a couple of key arguments.

The first one is in favor of his view that objective values are supernatural in nature

Objective obligations as well are supernatural in nature He also makes a couple of arguments and unpacks these in the area of attacking

Harris's position that Objective moral values and duties are natural in nature.

Let's go ahead and take a look at dr. Harris's opening I'm introducing two concepts

Consciousness and well -being now, let's start with consciousness. This is not an arbitrary starting point imagine the universe

Devoid of the possibility of consciousness imagine the universe entirely constituted of rocks

Okay, there's clearly no happiness or suffering in this universe There's no good or evil value judgments don't apply for changes in the universe to matter

They have to matter at least at least potentially to some conscious system What about well -being

Well the well -being of conscious creatures and the link between that immorality may seem open to doubt but it shouldn't

Here's the only assumption you have to make Imagine the universe in which every conscious creature

Suffers as much as it possibly as much as it possibly can for as long as it can

Okay, I call this the worst possible misery for everyone Okay, the worst possible misery for everyone is bad

Okay, if the word bad applies anywhere it applies here

So here's my argument for moral truth in the context of science questions of right and wrong and good and evil

Depend upon minds and they depend upon the possibility of experience Minds are natural phenomena.

They depend upon the laws of nature in some way. Okay Morality and human values therefore can be understood through science because in talking about these things we are talking about all of the facts

That influence the well -being of conscious creatures in our case. We're talking about genetics and neurobiology and psychology and sociology and economics a lot of this opening statement is a series of Anecdotes which are actually rhetorically persuasive.

I I think they're good to use when appropriate but then it's also a series of commentaries really interspersed with with jabs at the

Christian God the the God of the Bible and Somewhere in there. We have a couple of key things that I think are important to bear in mind

Which is what we saw there are two concepts right consciousness and well -being. These are the things that Dr Harris deems as important and then the other thing is his argument for moral truth in the context of science

Those are the big ones so so far I'd say out of the two interlocutors the one who laid a better framework in their opening statements as well as engaged more thoroughly with the topic question is

William Lane Craig Craig really goes by the book and Goes down the line provides those arguments provides the arguments for his position against Harris Harris does give some kind of an argument for objective morality, but never fully unpacks it instead he decided to provide those anecdotes and rhetorical, you know persuasive forms of speech to fill out his opener

But now we're gonna focus in on the rebuttals and we're gonna see if clash can truly take place You'll recall in my first speech that I said

I was going to defend two basic contentions tonight First that if God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties

First I explained that if God exists then objective moral values are grounded in the character of God himself

Who is essentially compassionate fair kind generous and so forth? So this is exactly what

Craig should do right here, especially coming out of Harris's opening statement Which was largely without argument and just long and meandering

Craig is going to bring the audience back on track He's got to lay that framework again and keep laying it over and over again

Remind them about how to think through the debate how to adjudicate the debate The audience needs this help because whoever lays a better framework most often ends up winning the debate in the audience's minds

Here, dr. Harris didn't have anything by way of disagreement to say, but I do want to clear up a possible confusion he represented this by saying that if Religion were not true then words like good and evil right and wrong would have no meaning.

I'm not maintaining that That is to confuse moral Ontology with moral semantics, right the the phrase there if religion were not true

Then words like good and evil and right and wrong would have no meaning I mean, that's really a more academic way of saying that the focus is not on whether an atheist can know good and evil

Right and wrong. The focus is on whether an atheist can justify it objectively if there is no

God That's what Craig is getting at moral ontology asks. What is the foundation of objective moral values and duties?

moral semantics asks What is the meaning of moral terms and I am not making any kind of semantical claim tonight that good?

Means something like commanded by God rather. My concern is moral ontology

What is the ground or the foundation of moral values and duties to give an illustration think of light?

Light is a certain visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum

But obviously that isn't the meaning of the word Light people knew how to use the word light long before they discovered its physical nature

And I might also add they certainly knew the difference between light and darkness Long before they understood the physics of light now in exactly the same way

We can know the meaning of moral terms like good and evil right and wrong And know the difference between good and evil without being aware that the good is grounded in God Ontologically, so that is the position.

I'm defending tonight. Is it moral values are grounded ontologically in God? Yeah, second our moral duties are grounded by God's commandments, which are necessary reflections of his nature

Here the only response I detected from dr. Harris was to refer to the atrocities in the

Hebrew Bible But I think this is quite irrelevant tonight's discussion There are plenty of divine command theorists who are not

Jews or Christians and place no stock whatsoever in the Bible So this isn't an objection to divine command theory that I'm defending tonight, right?

There's there's nothing wrong with doing what dr. Craig is doing. Okay for those of you out there

They're like, well, hold on a second. Dr. Craig has set up. I think I mentioned this in the opener He set up his argument in such a simplified way that he's arguing from mere theism not

Christianity Okay, mere theism simply means belief in a

God or gods, right? Cuz polytheism could be multiple gods monotheism is one God, right? So he's not arguing from Christianity proper

He's zoomed out a few steps because what this does is it allows Craig to focus like a laser on the relevant issues of Grounding objective morality.

That's the goal in a discussion like this You're trying to ground objective morality in something and not get bogged down about trying to defend attacks that are ultimately non sequiturs

I mean, they're you know, the the resurrection of Jesus, you know passages of the Bible that atheists don't like by the way

Do you see how in everyday situations people get lost down these rabbit holes all the time the conversations quickly devolve all the time

Because of because of the topic being changed to something else Craig is looking to avoid all of that and stay on track

That's why he's taking this approach. So we've not heard any objection to a Theistic grounding for ethics if God does exist

It's clear I think obvious even that we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties

Now what if God does not exist? Is there a sound foundation first of all for objective moral values?

Now here dr. Harris said you don't need religion in order to have universal morality

Again, that's a confusion. Of course, you don't remember the Nazis for example could have won

World War two and established a Universal morality the issue isn't universality.

The issue is Objectivity and I'm maintaining that in the absence of God there isn't any reason any explanation for the existence of objective moral values

What Craig is talking about is the confusion between ontology and epistemology? Okay, there's no question that morality exists in anyone's mind.

There is no question. Everyone agrees that it does Okay, and that in all of us there is this feature that we experience in ourselves and we call that morality

All right. The debate is not over that the debate is over where it comes from Okay, I've used this analogy before but it's like dr.

Craig and dr. Harris They're kind of stranded on a desert island and they're wandering through the forest there and then one day they discover a refrigerator and it's

Filled with fresh delicious food Dr. Craig asked the question. Well, where did all of this food come from?

That's the grounding question Okay, and dr. Harris responds by saying well, you see I don't have any trouble seeing that there's food in this fridge when a

Christian Engages a skeptic. It's as if the skeptic Here's the Christian saying without God you have no justification for Experiencing morality and then they go.

Oh, no. No, we all know what morality is You know We don't need God to know what morality is and they talk right past the

Christians and that's just unfortunate now here Dr. Harris, I think is guilty of misusing

Terms like good and bad right and wrong in equivocal ways He will often use them in non moral senses

For example, he'll say there are objectively good and bad moves in chess

Now that's clearly not a moral use of the terms good and bad, right? You just mean they're not apt to win or produce a winning strategy

It's not evil what you've done and similarly in ordinary English We use the words good in man bad in a number of non moral ways

For example, we say Notre Dame has a good team now We can hope it's an ethical team

But that's not what's indicated by the win -loss record that that is a different meaning of good or we say that's a good way

To get yourself killed or that's a good game plan You haven't really lived until your mother looks you in the eye and says, you know what?

That's a good way to get yourself killed Anybody else out there this it just me, huh?

All of these are non moral uses of the word good and dr Harris's contrast of the good life and the bad life is not an ethical contrast

Between a morally good life and an evil life It's a contrast between a pleasurable life and a miserable life and there's no reason to identify

Pleasure misery with good and evil right especially on Atheism which is not to say that this should be summarily dismissed

Okay, it just means if that's what dr. Harris is going to do then he needs to justify his unique usage of these terms

But he doesn't do that in his opening He just assumes it and then he builds his case around that particular assumption on the next to last page of his book dr

Harris makes the telling admission that if People like rapists liars and thieves could be just as happy as good people then his moral landscape would no longer be a

Moral Landscape rather. It would just be a continuum of well -being

Whose peaks are occupied by good and bad people or evil people alike

Snap. Wait, is that true? Hold on one second five minutes later

I just purchased the moral landscape on Kindle. Okay, and I found what the quote is

I believe it's on page 189. Take a look at this It is also conceivable that a science of human flourishing could be possible and yet people could be made equally happy By very different moral quote -unquote moral impulses perhaps there is no connection between being good and feeling good and therefore no connection between moral behavior as Generally conceived and subjective well -being now here it is in this case

Rapists liars and thieves would experience the same depth of happiness as the Saints However, if evil turned out to be as reliable a path to happiness as goodness is it would no longer be an especially moral landscape

Rather it would be a continuum of well -being upon which Saints and sinners would occupy equivalent peaks

Wow, I mean at least Harris is attempting to be consistent because that's a tough pill to swallow

If he's correct Okay if morality is dependent on minds as Harris has said and there is no good and evil in the original sense that just these are

Words that just referred to well -being in misery Then you have to accept that the rapist the liar that the psychopath the murderer the thief

They are on the same moral level of Saints In my opinion, this is devastating

It completely underwhelms the force of Harris's arguments that he was making the force of his presentation

I mean imagine trying to make an argument that you know what you should be rich, but by rich I don't mean lots of money and being rich could actually mean the same as poor now in the absence of God What authority is there to issue moral commands or prohibitions?

There is none on atheism and therefore there are no moral imperatives for us to obey in the absence of God There just isn't any sort of moral obligation or prohibition that characterizes our lives in particular

We're not morally obligated to promote the flourishing of conscious creatures. So bingo and Any attempt at suggesting otherwise is committing the is -ought fallacy

You know the is -ought fallacy basically goes like this just because reality is a certain way just because things are a certain way doesn't mean

That they should be that way You see the problem you cannot derive an ought or an obligation from an is

Science is only focused on describing what is accurately So to claim that science gives us moral oughts is to commit the is -ought fallacy which on a side note

I mean, it's really interesting to me because as Americans we don't like the status quo, right?

Especially in the 21st century. We are continuing to challenge the status quo. Dr Harris doesn't seem to like the fact that most people in the world are religious religious belief is the status quo

That's exactly what the is -ought fallacy pushes the status quo things are a certain way.

So they should be that way That's false. And therefore it seems to me that atheism is simply bereft of the adequate ontological foundations to establish the moral life

I think dr. Craig needs to get a lot of points for saying the word bereft Look this was by the book.

He engaged a lot of what dr. Harris said he didn't let a lot of things slip

And he was prepared. He had his notes. He was paying attention. This is textbook what it looks like for Rebuttal, so let's go ahead and see what dr.

Harris does ask yourselves What is wrong with spending eternity in hell?

Well, I'm told it's rather hot there for one Now happily there's absolutely no evidence that the

Christian hell exists And I think we should look at the consequences of believing in This framework this theistic framework in this world and what these moral underpinnings actually would be

Dr. Harris just became the dog from up. You know what? I'm you right you remember this?

So here's Harris, you know The topic tonight is are the foundations of moral values natural or supernatural now, here's something really interesting about that squirrel

If dr. Harris wants to drag Christianity into this he's gonna have to provide some kind of good reason to do it because as dr

Craig pointed out in the opener. The topic does not necessitate the focus on Christianity Okay, the topic necessitates an objective grounding for morality and all you atheists out there that are saying to yourselves

Well, no, but he actually does need to talk about Christianity you're not seeing past your own talking points right now because these rabbit trails that y 'all like to go down are

Exactly would keep you from wrestling with these specific issues in a robust fashion nine million children

Die every year before they reach the age of five The picture picture a an

Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004 that killed a quarter of a million people one of those every ten days

Killing children only under five Okay, it's twenty twenty four thousand children a day a thousand an hour

Seventeen or so a minute that means before I can get to the end of this sentence Some few children very likely will have died in terror and agony

Think think of the parents of these children Think of the fact that that most of these men and women believe in God and are praying at this moment

For their children to be spared And their prayers will not be answered Okay, but according to dr.

Craig, this is all part of God's plan. When did dr Craig and make that claim in this debate and if he didn't then why are you bringing this up any

God who would allow children? By the millions to suffer and die in this way and their parents to grieve in this way either can do nothing to help them or Doesn't care to he is therefore either impotent or evil and worse than that on dr

Craig's view most of these people many of these people certainly will be going to hell because they're praying to the wrong

God Just think about that Okay through no fault of their own they were born into the wrong culture where they got the wrong theology and they missed the revelation

Okay, there are 1 .2 billion people in India at this moment. Most of them are Hindus. Most of them therefore polytheists

Okay in dr. Craig's universe no matter how good these people are They are doomed if you are if you are praying to the monkey

God Hanuman you are doomed You will be tortured in hell for eternity. Now.

Is there the slightest evidence for this? No, it just says so in Mark 9 and Matthew 13 and Revelation 14

Perhaps you'll remember from the Lord of the Rings. It says when the elves die they go to Valinor But they can be reborn in Middle -earth.

I Say that just as a point of comparison. Okay, so God created the cultural isolation of the

Hindus Okay He engineered the circumstance of their deaths in ignorance of Revelation and then he created the penalty for this ignorance

Which is an eternity of conscious torment in fire Okay, on the other hand on dr.

Craig's account Your run -of -the -mill serial killer in America Okay, who spent his life raping and torturing children

Need only come to God come to Jesus on death row and after a final meal of fried chicken

He's going to spend an eternity in heaven after death. Okay, one thing should be crystal clear to you

This vision of life has absolutely nothing to do with moral accountability

So something good that Harris is doing is he's remaining even tempered even keeled

He's staying calm. He's speaking with confidence This goes a long way in establishing your ethos with the judges and with the audience

It really comes down to the delineation of ethos pathos and logos. Okay, so this is something that we've known for thousands of years

In your time on the stage That's what you got to focus on right these aspects of persuasion need to be developed and on display as you speak and Harrow's Harrow's Harris has the ethos part down and he's establishing pathos now by focusing on these emotionally compelling

Examples. Okay. These are all legitimate issues to discuss the

But from a Christian perspective, they're all based on an incomplete and flawed understanding of the

Christian worldview, but they're emotionally compelling I'm sure there are audience members that are resonating with what

Harris is saying. The problem is he's not engaging. Dr Craig's presentation at all. He's not engaging the topic of the debate and now what he's saying is well

You know what Christianity Christianity Christianity? Okay, and if he keeps going down this path, he's going to lose very badly

We're told that God is loving and kind and just and intrinsically good But when someone like myself points out the odd rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust because he visits suffering on innocent people of Scope and scale that would would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath

Okay, we're told that God is mysterious Okay, who can understand God's will?

Okay, and yet this is precisely This merely human understanding of God's will is precisely what believers use to establish his goodness in the first place

You know something good happens to a Christian some he feels some bliss while praying say

Or he sees some positive change in his life, and we're told that God is good Okay, but when children by the tens of thousands are torn from their parents arms and drowned

We're told that God is mysterious This is how you play tennis without the net

Okay, and I want to suggest to you It's a good line that it is not only tiresome when otherwise intelligent people speak this way it is morally reprehensible

How is it morally Reprehensible on a system that admits that true good and evil don't exist that ultimately good and evil are

Only scales of well -being and rapists and murderers who destroy innocent people's lives are on the same level of Saints I'm just curious.

I mean, let's let's say for argument's sake. There is a moral problem with God if There is are we really gonna sit here and try to use?

Dr. Harris's moral system to judge God I don't think we can so what's probably happening here is dr.

Harris. He heard dr Craig in his opening statement talked about and Selma's perfect being theology essentially, which is

Anselm says God is by definition the greatest conceivable being and therefore the highest good or whatever that you know

I mean and good meaning perfect and moral goodness, right if God is all the Omni's then he is also perfectly good, but that doesn't automatically smuggle in the concepts of Hell of The gospel, you know or anything like that and because dr

Harris he can find no reason to you know, based on his own presuppositions that a

God would allow Well -being to be challenged at all. This God cannot be good. This God is morally reprehensible

Once again, there's a couple of problems here with focusing on Christianity number one the debate topic was not about Christianity.

It was about finding a Foundation a grounding for objective moral values and obligations

Okay, and the second problem with this is like if you're gonna engage Christianity, then you should probably fully represent

Christianity Not incompletely inadequately ignorantly as far as I can tell

Represent Christian views and then try to present them. I mean this is straw manning This is really this is really awful and the more time that dr

Harris spends on these kinds of things and the less time he spends actually engaging. Dr Craig's presentation or even his rebuttal.

It means that he's going to lose this whole thing. Dr Harris needs to get back on track really quick And if God is good and loving and just and kind and he wanted to guide us morally with a book

Why give us a book that supports slavery? Why give us a book that admonishes us to kill people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft?

Now, of course, there's a way of not taking these questions to heart According to dr.

Craig's divine command theory God is not bound by moral duties. God doesn't have to be good.

Whatever he commands is good So when he commands that the Israelites to slaughter the

Amalekites that behavior becomes intrinsically good because he commanded it Okay.

Well here well being offered. I'm glad he raised that's interesting. So now he's engaging. Dr Craig's view on divine command theory.

This still isn't exactly what dr. Craig was talking about in his in his presentation But at least it's connected somehow.

He's now talked about something connected to the opening statement So, let's see where this goes the issue of psychopathy.

We're being offered a psychopathic and psychotic Moral attitude it's psychotic because this is completely delusional

There's no reason to believe that we live in a universe ruled by an invisible monster

Yahweh but it is it is Psychopathic because this is a total detachment

From from the well -being of human beings it this so easily rationalizes the slaughter of children

Okay, just that just think about the Muslims At this moment who are blowing themselves up Convinced that they are agents of God's will there is absolutely nothing that dr

Craig can can say against their behavior in moral terms Apart from his own faith -based claim that they're praying to the wrong

God If they had the right God what they were doing would be good on divine command theory

Now I'm obviously not saying that all the dr. Craig are all religious people are psychopaths and psychotics

But this to me is the is the true horror of religion It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions

What only lunatics could believe on their own, okay, what's the topic again? Does anybody remember what the topic is is anyone here in the auditorium familiar with the topic?

Will Harris ever fully engage the topic at some point in any meaningful sense Buehler Buehler?

If you wake up tomorrow morning Thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley Okay, you have lost your mind

Okay, but if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus, you're just a

Catholic It's a good line, and I'm not the first person to notice

That it's a it's a very strange sort of loving God who would make salvation depend on Believing in him on bad evidence if you lived 2 ,000 years ago.

There was evidence galore I mean he was just performing miracles, but apparently he got tired of being so helpful Okay, and so now we all inherit this very heavy burden of the doctrines implausibility and And and the effort to square it

With what we now know about the cosmos and we and what we know about the all -too -human origins of scripture becomes more and more difficult

Okay, and it's not just the generic God that dr. Craig is recommending it is the is God the father and Jesus the son

Okay, Christianity on dr. Craig's account is the true moral wealth of the world Well, I hate to break it to you here at Notre Dame, but Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice

Christianity is not a religion That sell that that repute or repudiates human sacrifice

It is a religion that celebrates a single human sacrifice as though it were effective

God so loved the world that he gave his only son John three six right God's son was a human idea of course

Jesus suffered the crucifixion so that none need suffer hell except those those billions in India and Billions like them throughout history.

Can we call the police that the topic is missing it ran away from Harris I I don't know.

I I'm I'm starting to lose my cool I'm starting to lose my patience here because I mean is he ever going to Like get to anything related to the topic here.

Okay, this is this is this is but stride this doctrine is a stride a contemptible history of scientific ignorance and religious barbarism we come from people who used to bury children in under the foundations of new buildings as Offerings to their imaginary gods.

I mean just think about that There in vast numbers of societies People would bury children in post holes

People like ourselves thinking that this would prevent an invisible being from knocking down their buildings

Harris is doing the same thing that Hitchens did That other other guys like these guys continue to do today.

It's not about the topic at all Just get me in a room and put me on stage and I'm going to pee all over Christianity and if people

Resonate with my pee, you know, then I won the debate somehow You know if they like the smell of my pee then that's it

That's all I got for those of you out there that are applauding Harris and you think that he's dealing significant blows to Craig he's not he's embarrassing himself.

He's standing in front of academics At a major university who know better because they're trained in these areas and he's embarrassing himself

Because he refuses to spend even five seconds on His position defending and unpacking his position on engaging dr.

Craig's presentation anything that dr Craig actually said in this debate. This is just a waste of time.

It's this is what's so frustrating It's it's all a waste of time. This could have been a lively debate

You know on this particular issue Atheists and skeptics still have no reason to defend

Harris's view why because he never gave one Instead he decided to take a pee all over the stage

Well, you know what guys this was very difficult to determine a winner I mean both guys were extremely well prepared and they were ready to defend their view.

Oh, wait a second. What's that? The opposite is true. Okay, you're right Of course only one person came to the stage and in this video to debate and that was

William Lane Craig He went by the book He laid a great framework so that the audience would understand and adjudicate the debate for themselves

And he kept laying it every time you get back up there. He kept laying a framework He provided an argument for objective morality that should be grounded in God He provided arguments for why

Harris's naturalistic view is insufficient He even pointed out something that I find incredibly devastating

For Harris's particular view because Harris himself admits that his own view his own moral system

Places rapists liars and thieves on the same level as Saints which makes it very difficult for me to understand

Harris's righteous indignation when he gets up and he tries to display moral outrage against Christianity What's sad is the issues that dr.

Harris brought up about real suffering? And about these things these issues are legitimate and they should be discussed but not by Harris who doesn't understand

Like the Christian worldview at all and he strawmans it all day long and then provides a moral system

That cannot judge anything to be good or evil because it's not even talking about good and evil

What a waste of a good opportunity because Harris got up and did essentially nothing to engage the topic or dr.

Craig's presentation. He clearly lost the debate. So go look at the other rebuttal segments. I took a look at them.

They did not Fair much better For Harris, dr. Craig is clearly the winner of this debate.

Why don't you go take a look at the debate yourself the fuller debate? I've left the link in the show notes and you tell me who you think won the debate if you think

Harris won the debate You're gonna have to tell me why because my god, that was awful But also if you have an idea about what apologetics debate

I should take a look at in the future I'm creating a list and I'm looking to knock those off as I go on with every new video

So let me know in the comments below as always I hope this raises the level of discourse in your neck of the woods as you get out there and you talk about these issues