Debate Class Tips, Matt Dillahunty, Leighton Flowers, Bahnsen vs. Stein, and more!

Why don't you tell the folks a little bit about your debate background.

So how did you get into that whole field.

I know you taught at the high school level.

Was that something you went to school for so that you can teach, or is it something that kind of was dropped in your lap like hey there's a

debate team and, you know, would you like to teach it how that look for you.

Basically that's what it was the way I think of it is like, so back in the day, so I think we're about the same age Eli

but back in the day.

How old are you?

How old are you?

I'm 42.

OK, I'm.

I'm 39.

I'm a young.

I haven't reached the 40s.

Let me tell you about your 40s right?

You wake up with your back hurting for no reason and that's your back already hurts and I'm not.

You there know back in the day Saturday Night Live was really popular.

Now it's not funny at all, but there was a guy Chevy Chase and he was really known for like falling backwards down the

stairs like everybody laughed at that.

That's how I feel.

I got into debate.

It's like I feel backwards down the stair like I went to school so I have my theology degree

and then I realized very long story.

Hey, you know what?

I think I'm supposed to be a teacher.

So then I went in went and got another like a Masters in teaching and then I started

teaching, but it was in literature.

So I originally entered what's called Clark County here in Las Vegas teaching literature,

but like second year in the debate teacher retired and so they were asking around

and the only thing I knew about debate was.

Well, there's logical fallacies involved and I was like a huge fan of philosophy.

I took a couple classes in theology, but then like just reading things on the side and so I'm like I think I could do

that so I got into it, but then I didn't realize that.

Oh, there's this whole broad category called forensics, which is basically debate like like

public forum debates Lincoln Douglas debates.

You know all that policy, but then on the other side in terms of category.

There's what's called like humorous interpretation dramatic interpretation.

There's all these.

It's almost like these monologues like if actors go out to audition for a part.

They would read these things and that's ultimately what the other side of forensics is.

I was not prepared for any of that.

So like I basically bit off way more than I could chew.

It was at a school that was in North town.

So there were no resources.

There was no money.

Most of my students were not getting out to the tournaments every weekend because they just couldn't afford it.

They didn't even have clothes like to put on to go.

You know what I mean?

Because like you got to dress up and but the the couple that did like there was a

couple of ladies.

They reached out to me years later.

I transferred to another school and they were like because of you Mr. Sala, you know, we're going

on to study law and I was like, oh my gosh like that's that's awesome.

And so nobody taught me anything.

I basically fell into it backwards.

Somebody helped me out with like their own lesson plans.

Another debate teacher from another school that I met basically emailed me all of his lesson plans and I just went through

there and just tried to like figure out what the heck to do week by week.

You learned on the job basically, which I learned on the job, which I'm a school teacher as well.

And oh wow.

Yeah.

So and there's a lot you learn on the job that they don't prepare you enough in college for the

actual classroom.

I think I learned more being in front of a class than sitting in a classroom learning how to be in front of a class.

If that makes sense.

Oh, yeah.

No, I hear you.

But some of the things that I realized were quote unquote best practices with my students was number one.

We practice debates all the time.

We would practice debates.

We would get into drills.

I would have my students especially realizing that not a lot of them were ever going to go to tournaments.

We would do mock tournaments.

So we would get together and pair up with people.

They would have to write what are called argument briefs, which are basically arguments from one side of a particular topic.

They would have to write both of them.

So like for affirmative and the negative, they would have to write and then we would flip a coin

and then they would learn on the spot.

Hey, I'm actually arguing the affirmative.

So they would do a lot of that stuff.

We would do probably one of the number one questions I get from like my audience

is like, what should I do to get better at debate?

Here's the number one thing that I've realized really helps everybody.

You take a transcript of a debate and you annotate it.

So like the debate itself, if you can find like a transcript transcript of the words on a paper of what is being

said, if you can print that out and look at print it out.

What am I if you can get it on your device?

And then you look at it because with your eyes, you can visualize, okay, there's the claim.

There's the evidence that's supporting the claim.

And there's the so we followed what was called the Tolman model of argumentation.

So claim data warrant, you know, the warrant justifies the warrant is the explanation for

how the data justifies the claim.

Okay, so we have to annotate all that stuff, identify all that stuff out.

And I found that that is probably the number one thing you can do to like improve

your skill.

So, I mean, this is helpful because William Lane Craig, you know, has all

of his debates transcribed on reasonable faith.

There you go.

So, and again, I, as I said before, I'm a presuppositionalist, but I've learned a lot from reading through debates and listening to basic people

who I don't necessarily agree every jot and tittle.

And I think that's a perfect way to kind of analyze even the opponent's perspective, because the people he debates are top

notch thinkers in their field.

So it's a really good way to kind of get, you know, the structure of the basics of their argument.

So that's an excellent, that's an excellent, I mean, I've done it before, but it's not something I've thought about in terms of doing more

intentionally, I think that and I enjoy reading transcripts, because it's faster than if I'm reading

a book, because I'm right.

It's just going to just it's like they're talking.

So it's, it's very easy.

Excellent.

That's really good.

That's really helpful.

Can I add one more thing, Eli?

Sure, sure.

The thing that is not attractive, right?

There was another word I was going to say, it starts with an S, but it's just not very attractive to

say this, right?

Because people are looking for that quick fix.

But it just, you have to do the hard work, right?

One of the other things I'm asked is, like, how do you, you know, like, you immediately hear something, and you recognize what

you're hearing, and whether or not that's an answer to a question.

It's because I'm looking at these transcripts, man, I've been doing this for like, you know, months and months, add up to years, you

once you develop that muscle, it's very quick for you to be able to hear something and go, Oh, okay, that is

not a substantive answer to the question.

He avoided the question, he's filibustering, etc, etc.

Excellent, excellent.

All right, well, so let's transfer over to some of the debates you've reviewed.

What is the least favorite?

So when you're kind of like, I mean, this was a pretty bad argument.

Or this was a pretty lame debate.

People wanted me to review this one.

I did.

And it's just kind of like, you know, which is your least favorite debate that you've reviewed on your channel?

And why?

I don't know if this is gonna answer the question.

So two come to mind, and for different reasons.

So first of all, I'm in my 40s.

So I don't remember two weeks ago, let alone, like I've done, I don't know how many videos I've done now.

But I do remember, like, any Matt Dillahunty debate, just

really, it put like the gag reflex, I really stand.

Because I, there's two reasons.

Why I don't like watching Matt Dillahunty debates.

Number one, because there's no substance, there's hardly any substance there.

And partially, I think what makes me so angry, if that's the right word,

when I watch Matt Dillahunty is, I feel like he knows better.

I feel like he he's smart enough, it seems to me to be able to put in the hard work to make

substantive arguments, but he doesn't.

And so that even makes me more upset.

You know, but that's the first thing.

The second thing is, the the way that he

commands authority.

Like, it's just really, it's really, it's an interesting phenomena.

I think I was talking to Trent Horne about this.

But like, you can agree to debate Matt Dillahunty.

Have you debated Matt Dillahunty before?

I was invited to and I turned it down.

Because, well, I have three kids.

So I don't have time to prepare.

Right?

Yeah, exactly.

A lot of people don't know this.

And I'll let you finish.

But a lot of people don't know this.

One of the reasons why I do interviews on my channel is number one, I love talking to people.

And I think it's really interesting.

But it's, it's usually because I don't have time to prepare stuff to teach myself like to

give.

So I do every now and then.

But the I have a theological and apologetics background.

So when I interview people, I already know.

I already kind of know what to ask in the direction to go, but it's easier.

So it takes less prep.

So I haven't debated him.

I turned I turned an invitation to do so down.

Because just a lack of time.

So yeah, well, and maybe that's something else to talk about.

But your prep time for debate.

I mean, that's substantial.

Yes.

So if you want to do this correctly, but anyway, I, I just you could

debate Matt Dillahunty to say, yeah, I'm going to debate Matt Dillahunty, you could have 500 subscribers on your channel.

But all of a sudden, your debate with Matt Dillahunty now is 100 ,000 views.

And they're all his followers.

Like he's got these followers, it doesn't matter what he does.

There was a there was a moment.

Well, I don't know if I'm going to turn your audience off.

There was a moment in the election in 2016.

Trump was like, I could basically go out in the street and shoot somebody and it wouldn't matter.

And it's like, that's how I feel like Matt Dillahunty's followers, like he could murder somebody on camera.

And they would be like, well, he's correct.

You know, like, wow.

So anything to do with Matt Dillahunty.

I'm like, you know what, the last one was the last one.

I can't stand it.

I can't I can't sit through this anymore.

Okay.

That's the first one.

The second one was the James White Layton flowers debate.

Hey, be very careful, because Layton sometimes pops his head in some of the

comments, sometimes not a lot.

And if he hears what you're about to say, he will make a four hour response.

Right.

No, I, to me, the debate itself was probably the

easiest to adjudicate, because there were the way that it went.

Like, you know, it really wasn't.

Well, okay.

Sorry, Layton.

It really wasn't lion versus lion.

It was more like lion versus bunny rabbit, in my opinion.

And so, you know, that that was easy.

You know, I was like, okay, this, this is happening.

This isn't happening over here.

And I laid out, I think I did this, like, I laid out the criteria at the beginning of how I was going to judge

the debate.

And so I was like, well, there you go.

I had my flow.

And I realized, yep, that's it.

So it was pretty easy.

But the aftermath that that I did, I have a huge distaste for all of that.

And the reason is, again, I said this at the beginning, I'm, I do not want to be somebody, there's a lot of channels

out there, who they point out differences.

And I think that's important.

Okay, I'm not discounting that at all.

They point out the differences between doctrine, and they point out the areas of problems, problematic things that are going on in the church

and all that stuff.

I don't want to be a voice in that arena.

I want to be somebody who, as much as we can, challenge the status quo of tribalism and clashing,

and try to unify as much as possible.

And I'm not gonna, I'm a Protestant, okay?

I'm not Catholic.

So I don't hate to burst anybody's bubble.

I had Trent Horn on, but I'm not Catholic.

And, and I hold to my convictions, solo scripture and all that very closely, very seriously.

But if I can work and stand shoulder to shoulder with somebody like Trent Horn, I'll do it.

So, okay, so in terms of the Leighton Flower discussion, James White, so you're saying it was easy to

adjudicate because it was clear that one side was doing what they were supposed to do in the

debate.

And that's it.

That's regardless if you agree with their position or not.

That's right.

One person was doing what they were supposed to be doing.

And the other person was not doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Who are you referring to, Eli?

I'm just kidding.

Leighton and I are cool.

We're buddies.

Not really, but I don't really talk to him a lot, but you know, he's a nice guy.

But yeah, so in terms of just what you're expected to do at a debate, Leighton didn't really

bring what he was supposed to, to address the specific topic.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah. Yeah.

Okay.

Essentially.

All right.

So let's shift from that one.

Okay, good.

That was safe.

We navigated those waters without saying anything too controversial.

Okay.

I'm sure it was fun, though, to know that there was some history there.

You wanted to kind of like, all right, I don't want to get into that mess.

There's definitely history there, unfortunately.

Yeah.

At any rate.

Okay.

So, okay.

So you have the Leighton Flowers, you have the Leighton Flowers, James White, the Matt Delahunty, and anyone.

What is your favorite debate, number one?

And number two, what was the most difficult debate for you to adjudicate?

Like, it was like, whoa, like this, these two debaters are excellent.

And it's very hard for me to kind of see who, say who won.

Boy.

Yeah.

So the ones that I generally love to watch are the, they're,

it's like, in my opinion, it's like Rocky versus Ivan Drago, right?

You know, like, you just give a punch, take a punch.

And probably the, I mean, the James White versus Trent Horn

debate.

Okay.

I thought was, was pretty good.

And, you know, I mean, I, here's the thing, like, I try to remain

objective and not share exactly, like, what my specific thoughts are when it comes to, especially to like,

trying to call them intramural debates or whatever.

Sure.

Because I really do want to focus on the, the skills, the tactics, the strategy.

But I try to put myself in devil's advocate's position and, and sort of go both

sides and go, what would I do if I were in that person's shoes?

And to me, they were both doing exactly what I, what I would have taught my students to do.

You know, it's just really great.

It was, it was a really fun debate to watch.

Another one along those lines was, what's the

William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan debate?

Yes.

Yeah.

I listened to that a while back and I, I did think that the, the atheist there, he did an excellent job and just in terms

of skill.

And I mean, I didn't, I don't, I think his view is obviously problematic, but I think he was

able to hold his own enough to give a good back and forth there.

Totally agree.

You know, so, and I, it is what it is.

You're gonna have to go back and watch the video, but I was, I was pleasantly surprised to see

somebody that was putting up such a fight, you know?

Yes. Yes.

And the most difficult one to judge.

Boy.

I don't know.

I...

Did I stump the debate teacher?

Oh my goodness.

I don't think anyone has been particularly difficult.

Okay. Okay. That's fair.

I do.

Well, okay.

I will say this.

The, the ones where they're way informal.

So here's the trick, right?

Apologetics debates, typically speaking, they're not formal debates at all.

They seem more like conversational town hall style, you know, back and

forth.

A lot of the debates now, like with capturing Christianity and who's the other guy with Aquinas, pints with Aquinas.

It's a lot of like, let's just talk to each other.

And, you know, they have the third party moderator also stepping in.

Those are more difficult for me because of the way my brain works.

Like I'm already stretching so far to get the formal rules of debate and squash it down on

top of informal debates to, to even further, like make that

complex and, and, and make it, it just makes it really difficult for me to figure out like who

a winner is, you know, when there's no clear contention stated, there's no clear rebuttals, you know?

So like the Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris video, that was hard, not because like, I

couldn't keep up with what they were saying or something.

I didn't know how to adjudicate at the end of the day.

I don't even think I did.

I don't remember.

Somebody's gonna have to fact check me on that, but those kinds of things, this one with William Lane Craig and anything with

unbelievable, you know, because Justin Brierley, I love Justin Brierley, I love that show.

But Justin Brierley will jump into the conversation and become a third voice when, you know,

in formal debates, it's really interlocutor to interlocutor.

So those are the most difficult ones for me.

Yeah.

Oh, excellent.

Now, um, who is your favorite debater individual

of all time?

If you, if you had to pick, it's kind of like, you know, what's your favorite movie?

It's really hard to answer.

Who is, who do you think right now?

Okay.

Who is your favorite debater?

Yeah, maybe the answer to this is the same.

And who do you think is the best debater right now?

Who's my favorite?

Who's the best?

I mean, it's probably the same answer, right?

No, sometimes.

I mean, there, there are people who are, I don't think are the best, but they're my favorite to listen to because I think they're more entertaining in

the way they engage the issue.

So there is no, there is no perfect debate and there is no perfect debater and, you know, a

spoiler alert, but both William Lane Craig and James White, in my opinion, um, on the video

tomorrow, they made mistakes.

They made some mistakes.

Um, having said that, and I don't even agree with everything that, uh, this person says

or, or believes.

Sure.

I think William Lane Craig is probably the best on balance considering everything now.

So I'm not just talking about what comes out of his mouth, but also his non -verbals.

There's a lot of things that go into debate that you, that you really.

He's got some good, he's got one of the incredulous faces.

He's got some pretty good non -verbals.

It's, it's funny.

Well, and he's on balance.

He, so he has his moments too, where it looks like he's smelling a fart and, uh, but you know, can I say that on your channel?

But, uh, he's not watching it.

Is he, is William Lane Craig watching this?

No, he's not.

Kevin Harris might, Kevin Harris might, he might watch it.

Whoops.

Um, I look, I love everybody.

Okay.

It was just a joke, but, um, the, on balance, the non -verbals need to be controlled.

And so, cause this goes into furthering, you know, your ethos, pathos logos, like you, you have to be

a, a full, your, your presentation has to be across the board, robust.

And I think when you consider it that way, William Lane Craig is probably the best that I can, that I

can think of.

With a, with a few close runner -ups, James White is actually really great too.

Um, I'll, I'll spoil it for you, but I make a comment about his non -verbals in the, uh, unbelievable discussion.

Cause it looked like he wanted to murder somebody, um, half the time.

James White?

James White.

Yeah.

Okay.

I, I wondered out loud in the video, I don't want to give too much away, but I wondered out loud if he knows his camera's on, you know, which

sometimes I guess you can forget.

I don't know, but yeah, that, that wasn't, uh, so everything has to be controlled in that way.

But he is actually, when he speaks is probably one of the best I've

ever seen.

James White, uh, Trent Horn too, is probably, you know, one of the best in terms of like

anticipating the other side.

Trent's probably one of the best I've ever seen.

I, I agree.

Um, again, and I, and what, and I liked what you said in terms of, um, you're just talking about

skill now.

So for example, you just said you're a Protestant, right?

So you don't share, uh, Trent Horn's, um, perspective.

However, however, on, from a perspective of skill, I mean, someone to be an idiot

to not be able to acknowledge at a debate level, like he knows what he's doing.

Yeah.

And observing debates of, by Trent Horn and anyone else, you could learn a lot.

Um, and I think there's, there's a lot to be, a lot to be said there.

So I would agree, um, out of, uh, non -Protestant debaters, Trent Horn is definitely up there for me in

terms of skill.

Um, William Lane Craig, of course, the Protestant side, he's, he, I, go ahead.

Did you want to say something?

Jeff Durbin.

Jeff Durbin has to be, yeah.

One of the, one of the best that I've seen as well.

Um, non -verbals are very controlled.

Uh, really doesn't, he trims the fat.

There's not a lot of wasted words, uh, with Jeff Durbin.

I really appreciate that too, but I haven't seen a whole lot of debates.

So when I was teaching, there was no time to keep up with a lot of debates.

Okay.

Literally like the last apologetics debate I remember watching was, and I don't remember what year this was, Sean

Carroll versus William Lane Craig.

Oh, wow.

That's so there's a gap.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Oh, wow.

Where I'm coming back to this as somebody retired now from teaching last year or whatever.

And whenever that, whenever that debate was, so you're basically, you're basically sure.

I'll, I'll review a debate by Matt Delahunty.

Um, who is Matt Delahunty again?

Well, that's exactly what happened.

I was like, okay, because I get, uh, everybody votes on my, in my community.

We, I asked him what they want.

I give them some choices.

They tell me what they want to see.

So I do it.

The first time I saw Matt Dylan, I'm like, cool.

So then I started watching the debate.

I'm like, what, who is this?

You know?

So yeah, it was me personally.

I do.

One of the, one of the things I like about a presuppositional approach, and it has nothing to do with its truth, like whether it's

the view, the method you should use, you know, I think it is, but this element of it that I like is

that it tends to be a little more aggressive in terms of its, its attack, its attacking

foundation.

So I find that people who are presuppositionalists tend to be more aggressive in their argumentation than someone

who is saying, Hey, we're going to leave our bias outside and kind of just follow the evidence where it goes.

So it's interesting to see the two methodologies or the however methodologies that some

methodologies tend to be a little more aggressive than others.

While the more, the less aggressive ones tend to focus on a different tact and is awesome in its own right as

well.

But I like in debate, at least in terms of entertainment, I do

enjoy a good presuppositional debate because it, it tends to be a little bit more on the aggressive side.

And that's interesting to me because, you know,.

I will say that the approach is a good one, you know, especially in that more formal

sense.

So I don't know if we'll get to this, but I absolutely do not advocate that people who consume

lots of debates and watch them should then go out and try to mimic that just whatever

they see on the debate side in a regular conversation.

I think that's a recipe for disaster.

But on the formal side, people who are skilled in presuppositional apologetics

methods, like Jeff Durbin, for example, yeah, you're right.

Like they don't, they don't even let people get, like, if there was a plane that was about to take off, they wouldn't

even let a taxi onto the runway, you know, because they're like, wait a sec, like, what are you using in order to make this

argument in the first place?

And where does that come from?

And there is no response to that.

You know, it's like, you know, somebody coming in to use my toilet and then telling me I have no place to go.

Plumbing.

It's like, well, you know, come on, dude, like you can't, you can't do that.

So that's great.

The transcendental argument's great.

The problem of induction, I think, oh yeah, Jeff Durbin and James White, I did a video on that.

And they brought up the problem of induction.

There's no coming back from that, you know?

Some people think there is, but I'm not convinced.

I think it's still a good, a good point to use there.

Yeah.

I know, I know a guy who thinks that it's not, that it's answerable.

He's a Christian.

He thinks atheists are able to answer it.

I disagree, but I think it's an excellent, it's still an excellent point to bring up.

Greg Bonson used it in his debate with Gordon Stein and Edward

Tabash, which, which leads me, as someone asked the question here, Nate, will you be, if you're on Revealed Apologetics, I have to ask you this because, you know, I'm not

sure if you're on Revealed Apologetics.

Here at Revealed Apologetics, we promote a presuppositional approach.

I have to ask you, are you going to be reviewing the Bonson -Stein debate at any point?

Boy, I would love to.

I would love to.

I've been waiting for that one.

But like I said, I've constrained myself to the votes and the votes, multiple times I put that debate up for vote and

it did not win any of the times.

So if whoever's asking can rally the troops at my community and get it to

win the vote, or maybe I just do an executive decision.

What do you think, Eli?

And just do it.

Well, you, I mean, you're the, you're the boss.

I could, I could tell people, go to his channel, his next live stream and just super chat him.

Maybe that'll convince him.

Just get a bunch of super chats.

Right.

No, I, there's no way, there's no possible world.

Anybody?

WLC?

Anybody?

There's no possible world where I do not do that debate next year.