methinks you are confusing rhetoric and debating.
No, I meant debate. Shermer could be the world's most knowledgeable man and still lose a debate if he can't even compose a coherent sentence. Hovind could be the dumbest man alive, but as long as he can create the illusion with his used-car-salesman speech, he will still win in a debate.
in a true debate, how you support your position is what gives you the win. think of a high school debate team. logic and evidence are key, here.
Well, certainly you know that I agree that this is what all debate should be premised upon. That isn't always the case.
what hovind, and those lawyers are doing, is trying to persuade the audience. that's not exactly a debate. it's in this arena that using better rhetoric will get you the win.
That is a debate-- its a verbal jousting. And if you can't joust or can't find a way to articulate the points in your mind, its all for nothing in a debate. Hovind can debate. I really don't know why anyone is arguing that point. Actually I do know why. You just wish it wasn't so because he makes 'respectable' folks look foolish. Its like Gould. Its unquestionable that Gould was a highly intelligent man. However, he knew that he didn't have the debate skills to get his points across quickly, convincingly, and sharply. That doesn't poorly against him. I, like him, am a poor communicator at the speaking level. I find it much easier to get my points across on paper than I can speaking. That's just how I am. And Gould was very articulate on paper. But he understood that his weakness was in debate.
Is that more clear? I don't like Hovind. I don't Shermer. I just judged them on the debate. Hovind won the debate. And all of the critics who say otherwise don't have a right to unless they sit down and take the time to listen to it themselves.
"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2
nd Corinthians 10:4-5