In their recent debate, atheist television star Bill Nye and creation science advocate Ken Ham had a decision to make as they planned for their upcoming clash.
The goal of any debate is to win it. And, there are at least two approaches to winning - and Nye and Ham had to decide which approach they would take.
How Debaters win Debates:
1. Make better arguments than your opponents OR
2. Make spectators believe you have better arguments than your opponent.
The former appeals to logic. The latter appeals to emotion. The former is a real win. The latter is a perceived win. Clearly, Bill Nye's approach was the latter.
A thoughtful, intelligent spectator will recognize that a debater who wins using the latter approach really didn't win at all. The truth is not on their side. Unfortunately, many (and maybe even the majority) of people who watch any debate decide who the winner is based upon which debater they like best.
People can be, and often are, deceived simply because they are not discerning about the facts being argued. They are not using logic, but their emotions instead. Put another way, they are open to being manipulated by an emotional appeal.
With that stated, Bill Nye employed several debate tactics that were designed to appeal to the emotions of spectators rather than to their intellect.
Here are a few of the tactics Nye used on the unsuspecting:
1. Pepper your opponent with statements and questions knowing that there is no way he can address them in a five minute or one minute rebuttal. Nye wanted you, the spectator, to assume that his points were all accurate because Ham did not respond to some of them. Nye did not want you to make the connection to the fact that Ham could not respond to them due to lack of time.
This is a tactic that is frequently used in debates. Did you fall for it in this debate? The way to counter this tactic is to research the statements Ham made after the debate is over.
2. Act as though your opponent didn't answer questions you asked him. Nye repeated questions that Ham had already answered by saying "you still haven't told us" or "we're still waiting for you to tell us." One example was that Nye repeatedly and directly challenged Ham to show how the creation model could make predictions. Even after Ham addressed it with a PowerPoint slide, Nye continued on as though Ham had not addressed it.
Nye was hoping that spectators would not realize that Ham had answered the question. His idea was to make it look as though Ham was trying to avoid answering the question. Did you fall for it?
3. Try to make your opponent appear to be intolerant, stupid, backwards, dangerous, radical, isolated and in the minority. Nye did this over and over and over again.
Nye repeatedly said "I am a reasonable man," with the implication that Ham is not reasonable.
Nye repeatedly said "This is unsettling" or "this is dangerous" with the implication that Ham is a dangerous man.
Nye repeatedly made statements like "You expect 'the rest of us'" to believe you and your followers. The idea here is to make it look as though it is Nye and all of "us" against Ham.
Nye repeatedly said "there are billions of people around the world who are religious but don't agree with you." The idea was to make it look like Ham is too radical for even those who embrace religion. Ask yourself this question, how many of the billions of religions people around the world agree with Nye?
Nye referred to himself and those with his worldview as "real scientists," scientists "on the outside." Of course, the implication here is that Ham and all the scientists who believe that God created are not really scientists.
The topic of the debate was "Is Creation a Viable Model in Today's Modern Scientific Era?" Nye, however, repeatedly said the topic was "Is Ken Ham's model...." He said "Ken Ham's model" at least fifteen times in the debate. Why? He wanted the spectator to believe that Creationism is only held by a very few. There is also an implication that Ken Ham came up with the idea and only has a handful of radical followers.
Nye repeatedly made statements like "if we abandon science" and "if we stop being innovative." He appealed to the voters of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States while making these statements. Nye wanted the audience to believe that if people believe that God created, then America would stop developing medicines, exploring the universe and inventing new technologies.
Nye is hoping spectators do not realize that, in the history of America, most probably a majority of innovations and technologies were invented by Christians. Our innovation comes because of our belief in a Creator who has ordered His creation in a way that makes things discoverable.
Even today, the vast majority of relief, mission and justice organizations around the world are the work of Christians.
Nye not only sought to put Ham in a poor light, he disparaged Scripture too. He did it by rehashing arguments that almost no serious critics of the Bible use today because they have been soundly refuted by Christian and secular scholars. Nye was not concerned with the facts. He had a goal to manipulate the audience into doubting the accuracy of Scripture.
Did you fall for any of this?
4. Get people to like you better than the other guy. Nye told about his hardworking dad who came from humble beginnings and couldn't even tie his own bow tie. He told about his cousin-once-removed who suffered from cancer. He spoke of the joy that his work gives him. He wanted people to identify with him and believe him.
Did you fall for it?
Now that the debate has ended, one question that must be answered is "did the use of any of these tactics present a single, logical argument supporting Nye's position?"
Be careful what you fall for!
