In this episode Trent sits down with Nate from Wise Disciple who is a Christian debate coach and has reviewed Trent’s debates with Matt Dillahunty and James White.
Welcome to the Counsel of Trent Podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
Hey, guys. Welcome to The Counsel of Trent Podcast. I’m your host, Catholic Answers apologist and speaker, Trent Horn, and today I want to share with you an interview that I gave for Nate over at the Wise Disciple Channel. He is a Christian debate teacher. He’s a debate coach, he’s a debate teacher, and so he has a channel where he just reviews debates between Christians and atheists and even debates between Christians and other Christians. And I watched his review of my old debate with James White on whether salvation can be lost, and I really appreciated his tone. I’ve seen a lot of his other videos, and you’ll see from this video, I think we got along really well.
Trent Horn:
So we had a great chat talking about the purpose of debates, what they’re for, how Christians can be better at them. Overall, it was a really great, insightful conversation. I think you’ll benefit a lot from this. Be sure to go check out his channel, Wise Disciple. And of course, if you haven’t, like this video, subscribe to us here on YouTube, iTunes, Google Play, all of that good stuff. Without further ado, here is my chat with a debate teacher on how Christians should debate.
Nate Sala:
I want to get into your background, actually. This is why we’re having you come on. I want to chat about debate with you. I know my audience has been talking about this a lot more. Debate tactics, debate strategy, stuff like that. So if we can, let’s go all the way back to young Trent Horn. Tell us a little bit about your background. Did you do any debate in school or was that later on?
Trent Horn:
Yeah, here is what’s funny. I’ve never taken formal debate classes or debate training, so I’ve never… I’m familiar with Lincoln-Douglas debate and what are called forensics, though those kind of debates, it’s very interesting. They’re really focused more on technical skill. When you do debate in high school or college, it’s not so much about persuading a lay person as it is amassing a technical amount of points in a competition, that you hit an argument. You didn’t drop an argument, so if you go online… So I’d encourage our viewers, who probably watch… Maybe you watch a William Lane Craig debate, or one of my debates… Look up high school Lincoln-Douglas debate, and it’s so very different from when you see the debates that have been reviewed on your channel, because people will get up and they’ll talk a mile a minute.
Trent Horn:
“And this was their point that was assessed by my opponent, [inaudible 00:02:36],” because their goal is just to let judge know I hit all my arguments, I replied to every counter argument, I didn’t… And they have these different techniques. So when I do debates, my goal is… That’s not my goal. My goal is to present the gospel, to present the truth of the faith. And my goal especially is to reach people who are on the fence because every time you do a debate, unless the other person just starts convulsing and vomiting and passes out, there’s always going to be a group of people that says that guy won. No matter how badly he does, they’re all… He’s always going to have, or she’s always going to have… Loyal defenders that will say that they won. And same for me, unless I just convulse and start vomiting, people will say that I will won, even if I did a kind of a crummy job.
Trent Horn:
But there are those people in the middle that I want to reach. So my background, yeah. I wasn’t trained in forensic debating. The only training I got, I did this pro-life ministry called Justice for All, and I would go out to college campuses to dialogue about the issue of abortion. We would set up these graphic image displays. We would talk to students. One of the activities that we did was we would have an open microphone session. So we would have a microphone and ask people, “Hey, who wants to talk to us about the issue of abortion?” And people would come up. And that was my first chance of essentially the cross-examination period of hearing an argument live, analyzing it for weaknesses and trying to help the other person see they have an inconsistency, and so it was kind of a trial by fire.
Trent Horn:
And then these things would also happen with atheism and then other issues when I was on campus, so that’s really where I learned a lot of these techniques and study was, one, from doing that when I was on college campuses. The other, in my own conversion experience, studying other debaters, people like William Lane Craig, for example, though trying to add my own particular responses and style, because I think it’s great to study, if you love debate… Because you might be able to watch your channel. “I want to do debates,” so that’s great. But what my encouragement would be, don’t be Trent, don’t be Trent Horn, don’t be William Lane Craig, don’t be Nate Sala. Be you, but you understand the rules of debate and you have your own particular style. That’s what’s really important.
Nate Sala:
That’s good. That’s actually great advice, because on top of everything else that goes into debates and, in a second, I was going to ask you a little bit about your prep and what that looked like. But, you do need to work to your strengths, and one of the other aspects of being a good debater is developing what’s called your ethos, pathos, logos, and having that connection with your judge slash audience, because in informal debates it’s the audience is the judge. So, yeah. Playing up on what you’re good at, and if you’re a little bit more on the humorous side, like I am, using that to your advantage. That’s really good.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. I think that’s important because as I’ve done debates and when you brought up about logs, ethos, and pathos, or basically logic, emotion, and authority, to understand why should I believe what you’re saying? That when you do a debate, whoever you are, understand who you are, play to your strengths and understand your weaknesses.
Trent Horn:
So for example, I would say that when people do debates, there is… This just popped in my head. Let’s see if it makes sense to you. There’s kind of an inverse relationship between likability and aggressiveness. So you can have some debaters, they’re very likable, but they may… And I think I might tend towards this more than other people. I mean, I don’t want to toot my own horn, sorry for the pun there. There’s some people that are very… They’re like bulldogs. And by this, [inaudible 00:06:18] was talking about the people that I have engaged. And so they come with a very aggressive, assertive style, and that can have an advantage in that you can demonstrate a weakness in your opponent very quickly and clearly, but in having that aggressive, assertive style, a weakness that comes off with that is that you may appear unlikable to people who are kind of on the fence.
Trent Horn:
Now to flip that, if you’re a very likable individual who wants to strive to get along with others and it doesn’t have as much of that aggressive tendency, then you may appeal to likability, but people might also think your argument comes off weaker if you’re engaging a more aggressive person. So, and you could probably say this and maybe you should explore this for another episode. People’s personality traits, when they go into debates, they will have these kind of strengths and weaknesses. Also, you might say with common-sense thinking versus very philosophical, very philosophical might help you dissect arguments. People might have a hard time, though, understanding you. But if you speak in a common sense way, people might rally behind you, but then more learned people will be like, “This guy didn’t damage the other guy’s case at all. He didn’t really say anything.” Play to your strengths and be aware of your weaknesses and always work to grow with them.
Nate Sala:
So I mean, this is going to be a kind of a loose… We’re going to float around, and I’m tracking the discussion here, because I think one of the things that I really do appreciate about you, especially now… Because back when I was in the classroom, this was not really a reality. By the way, do you mind if I ask, are you… So I’m in Las Vegas. Are you nearby? Where are you at?
Trent Horn:
Well, I worked at Catholic Answers for a while in San Diego, California, but about a year ago, my family and I, we relocated to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I have been to Vegas a few times though. Well, when we planned to move out of San Diego, I hate the cold. I lived in Kansas for two years and I’m just not a snow person. So it was really when we looked at places to go, we thought about going back home to Phoenix, where I lived for a while, Vegas was possibly an option, Florida. Then we settled on Dallas Forth-Worth, because that’s still a nice… Somewhere in the Sunbelt is where I had to go, but I’ve been to Vegas a few times. It’s got some good stuff there.
Nate Sala:
Well you shouldn’t move to Vegas. I get the sense we would have gotten along famously, but just being in… So Vegas is kind of spread out, and in the north town, it’s not really great. It’s lower socioeconomic status and all of that. So I was at a school there with limited resources for debate. And so what I’m getting at is, now, I’m sort of looking at debates online where the camera is right in your eye.
Nate Sala:
And so this really does come back to what you just said, and what I like about you, is that you… Your non-verbals are really controlled. You have an earnestness to you. You’ve got poker face, but in a good way, and so you come across as earnest, not really like a bulldog, like you said earlier, and that really does go a long way to benefit you.
Trent Horn:
Yes. I think that’s helpful. Another comparison you could offer… Because I think that most debates people watch in general, so let’s say there’s Christian-atheist debates, but among the general public, the only debates people ever really see are probably the presidential debates, if you can call them debates even. So, it depends.
Trent Horn:
But I remember many years ago, actually in a lot of them… Because in a lot of the presidential debates, they will show… And sometimes this happens in Christian apologetic debates, depending on the channel you’re on. When one person is talking, they’ll leave up your camera, and people see what you’re doing. And so if you do these debates, you should… You must always act like the camera is on you, even if you’re not sure. So I remember in the debates with Al Gore and George W. Bush back in the year 2000, one area where Gore stumbled a bit was that he came off very condescending. George Bush would say something and you could see him in the back going, “[inaudible 00:10:26].”
Nate Sala:
Yeah, that’s right.
Trent Horn:
This kind of stuff, and it comes off… You’re right. If you don’t have that control over yourself, it can come off that condescending or even a kind of a lack of control. Now it’s okay to have some responses. In my debate with Alex O’Connor, one of my responses I couldn’t hold in when he was talking, turned into a little meme with people, because I gave a thought experiment about morality. And I said, “What about in this case, could you murder an innocent person to save your life?” And Alex said, “Yeah, I think you could murder and cannibalize them.” And I was getting a drink of my water when he said that, and I go, [inaudible 00:11:04]. And I just do that. And someone turned it into a meme and people noticed that I had this dead man like, “Wasn’t expecting that.”
Trent Horn:
Right? It’s all about having that control. So poker face in general, neutral face. If your opponent says something… Is just ridiculous and attacks you, it’s… Instead of doing something like this like, “What an idiot,” you should just smile and shake your head no. Like, “My goodness.” Or just give a smile and laugh like, “Okay.” And I’ve seen William Lane Craig do that in some debates where someone says something ridiculous, and he’s just… To show that you’ve heard the objection, you recognize it’s absurd, but you’re not getting worked up over it.
Nate Sala:
Yeah. That’s right. The worst thing you could do is go… Is have surprised face. Like, “[inaudible 00:11:59]. I wasn’t ready for that. What’s happening? I’m losing it.” Then that’s bad.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. Yeah, no. You have to push that feeling deep down inside if you are feeling that, and you can… In that case, maybe you could offer a quizzical look. And I have been in situations like that before. My opponent just says something totally out of left field. I’m like, “Where is this going?” And then just proceed to writing notes or pensively thinking, but yeah. Well, debate in general, to do it well, you have to have control over your non-verbals and control of your thought, and of course control over your speech and planning what you choose to say in response.
Nate Sala:
That’s right. That’s right. So, I mean, in light of that, the next question that I had for you was about your prep time or your prep in general. What do you do to prepare for a debate?
Trent Horn:
Well, usually what I do is once we’ve agreed upon a resolution, I start in a variety of ways. Usually first, I build up my opening statement and what’s hard is… And I always do this. I’ll have my opening statement done, let’s say, a few weeks beforehand, but I still end up tinkering with it the night before, because I’m like, “Oh, this isn’t working as well,” or… So I’ll work on my opening statement. I read the opening statement allowed, and I offer myself about 30 seconds of cushion to make sure I’m not up against the wire to finish, so I will read it… And I’ll read it aloud multiple times to make sure it sounds correct, it’s easy to follow, easy to understand, I’m familiar with it. So I will put that forward, be very prepared, and I will go through the opening statement, and I’ll make sure to cut the fat. I want to stick with the arguments.
Trent Horn:
And the goal here is arguments and evidences. Every now and then, especially if my opponent is famous for a particular argument, sometimes in the opening statement, I will put a preemptive strike. Now, you shouldn’t try to anticipate every objection and log that into your opening statement. It’s better to put forward your evidence for your case. But every now and then if I know my opponent will phrase things in a certain way or make things confusing for people, I will offer… And this is especially the case if I am the affirmative and I go first, I’ll offer a preemptive strike to say, “My opponent often puts things this way, but remember A, B, and C.” And that gives the audience another way of looking at his opening statement. That way they say, “Oh, I see what he is doing here.” That way they’re analyzing his opening statement with my preferred lens.
Trent Horn:
So what’s interesting is when you do debates, I had a… Somebody was talking with me, they were saying, “I want to do a debate with you, but could I open and then speak last?” And I said, “Absolutely not. Absolutely not,” because there’s a trade-off there. When you speak first, you get the advantage of setting that framework, setting a lens for people to view the negative’s opening statement. So you do have an advantage there, but you also have a disadvantage that the affirmative carries the burden of proof. The negative can just fold his arms, and… And well, we’ll get to that when we talk about a particular debater here soon, just say, “I’m not convinced. You shouldn’t be convinced. It’s not good enough.” The negative just has to cast doubt.
Trent Horn:
So traditionally, it’s easier to be the negative, but the affirmative can also put so much out there, the negative can’t really shoot it all down. The negative has an advantage though, in that he gets to speak last, so he gets to have the last-
Nate Sala:
That’s right.
Trent Horn:
… closing statement. Now you shouldn’t cheat. I’ll tell you one thing, Nate. In many of my debates, the thing that’s most frustrating is nearly everyone I have debated has cheated at one point in the debate. The most common example is when we do Q&A, the question and answer with the audience, usually it’s two minutes for one person to answer, one minute for the other person to respond. Okay? And I cannot tell you how many times I’ve been in a debate where I… That guy gave their two minutes and I gave my one minute counter reply, and then he pipes up and says something else, which is against the rules. You had your turn. We need to keep it even.
Trent Horn:
Or in the closing statement, when my opponent will present a new argument. Now this happened to me in my debate on the Deuterocanonical books of scripture, the [inaudible 00:16:13]… Or as Protestants called them, the Apocrypha, the Old Testament canon, that my opponent, he threw a new argument in, in his closing statement. And I said, “That’s false. I’m not going to respond at length because he shouldn’t do that.” That’s against the rules. So what I do at the debate, so I craft the opening statement real well, trim it up. Then what I do after that, is I try to understand my opponent as much as I can. I want to know him or her better than they know themselves, so I’ll watch their debates, I will read their books.
Trent Horn:
And so in doing that and researching the topic and understanding where they come from, then I will craft rebuttals, and they will be… Usually I’ll keep them as notes. Sometimes I’ll keep them in a Word document, and I’ll be able… On the fly, when I’m talking to the person, I might jot down what they say in opening and then I’ll slot it into a rebuttal. Sometimes I have a rebuttal pre-written, because I’ve got a pretty… I’m going to take a good gamble [inaudible 00:17:12] a sense of what they’re going to do. Well, the key with doing a good debate is preparation, preparation, preparation. If you do it-
Nate Sala:
That’s right.
Trent Horn:
… off the top of your head, you’re just not going to do as well. You just won’t. The more you’re prepared, the better it’s going to go. So with the rebuttals, I will take advantage of this. And this might come up more when we talk about my debate with James White, so with my debate with James White, I had not just prepared rebuttals. I had prepared rebuttal slides available-
Nate Sala:
Yeah. That was good.
Trent Horn:
… that I dropped in. And so I noticed this actually that when I went up with my computer, even the second rebuttal, to offer my replies, he kind of threw up his hands, seeing that I had this and was ready to walk people through what he had said. So that’s what I’ll do next is I will really immerse myself in the other person so much so I’m kind of sick of them by the time the debate gets here, if they have a paper and debate trail. And so what’s hard is this is another paired benefit disadvantage.
Trent Horn:
So I’ve debated some people like James White or Dan Barker who are very practiced. They’ve done debates since before I was born, so they have a style. They’ve done it a bunch, so it comes second nature to them, so that’s an advantage. A disadvantage though, and this is something I tried to play on in my two debates with Dan Barker, was that when people do things over and over again, they fall into patterns, and so they become predictable and you’re able to anticipate what they’re going to do and have a ready… And have kind of a ready reply for that.
Trent Horn:
So, yeah. So I basically just do that. I also spend time in prayer and try to just be focused on what I am attempting to do in the situation. And then, yeah. Just try to be prepared, have some prepared cross-examination questions that I think will be most fruitful. And then it’s funny. The day of the debate, I can’t get anything done at work because I’m too focused and like, “Oh. Today is shot. I just want the debate to be over already,” and then you get up and you do it. But that’s mostly how. I try to build up my case and then just try to be aware of standard rebuttals and then the things that are unique to what my opponent might bring.
Nate Sala:
Yeah. I mean, it’s great because not having had more formal training in school and stuff like that, you’re explaining everything that we would go through in the classroom, like laying a framework, flowing. Flowing is taking notes during a debate. When your opponent is saying something you’re jotting it down.
Nate Sala:
And research. Research is key, if you can anticipate. Because I mean the thing with me and my students was we would always do drills, a lot of practice debates, and it was always understood that whenever you’re given a topic and a debate, you’ve got to write argument briefs from both sides and then you won’t know going in… We’ll flip a coin and then you know how you’re going to debate, right? But that’s anticipation. That’s everything you’re saying.
Trent Horn:
Yeah, that’s right. And so the key is to know your other opponent’s side and his arguments extremely well so that you can counter them and then be prepared on your end to focus on what you’re debating.
Trent Horn:
So a key and I’ve done well and not as well in certain areas when I haven’t focused on this. If you’re defending a resolution, focus on the resolution. Don’t let your opponent trick you into going into a side trail on things where he might be ready to clobber you, if it’s not a crucial part of your resolution. You can say, “Well, that is a very interesting topic, but it’s not related to what we are talking about today.” So if you’re a Christian and you’re debating the existence of God or even whether did Jesus rise from the dead, your atheist opponent might say, “So my opponent believes in the Bible, but you know the Bible says that that Christians can burn people at the stake or that the Israelites can slaughter men, women, and children.”
Trent Horn:
It’s a trap, to quote Admiral Ackbar from Return of the Jedi, because then if you’re sucked into debate… Even if you feel confident, he purposely brought that up because he knows it’s easier for him to hit you on those points, and it detracts from the case you’re trying to present, so you have to be careful to not be sucked in to those side venues. But yeah, it’s all about preparation.
Trent Horn:
I’ll give you an example, that when I debated Dan Barker, a former pastor turned atheist, author of the book Godless, we debated once. It was my first public, public debate, still pretty green. And then we debated a second time at the University of Minnesota and I was… Barker doing what I thought he would, that I had studied his previous debates, and he had point for point, same thing. Now he had overwhelmed previous Christian opponents that… We were debating does the Christian God exist?
Trent Horn:
So what Barker did is he just threw up, he did something… And this is helpful for people to know in debate parlance. This was originally called the Gish gallop. So Duane Gish was a Young Earth creationist, and when he would debate people on evolution, he would just have 20 arguments against evolution and run through them quickly. And it’s hard to go back through all of them and you say, “Well, you didn’t get all of them, so I win.” So Barker kind of did that with Bible difficulties and contradictions. His whole case was, “Does the Christian God exist? No. Here is all of this stuff in the Bible that is difficult or doesn’t make sense.”
Trent Horn:
So I practiced very hard and crafted first my opening statement pre… It was a preemptive strike against that approach saying it’s not relevant. And actually I remember in that debate, I ended right on the buzzer, right at 15. And then in the rebuttal, my rebuttal was trimmed as well. That entire rebuttal was pre-written. I knew exactly what he was going to do. And so because of that, I was able to neutralize and all… The problem with the Gish gallop is, yeah. It’s good, except if your opponent catches everything and throws it back, now you’re under the same weight to reply, and you’ve gotten yourself into trouble. So there, the preparation really paid off.
Nate Sala:
Oh, that’s good. That’s good. He couldn’t come back with anything?
Trent Horn:
No. He was not able to catch up after that. He could have, if I was unable to reply to his arguments, but I was able to reply, I think, to almost every substantive objection. Because he was just, “Here is a Bible verse. Boy, doesn’t that sound bad? Here is the next one. Here is Bible verse. Oh, boy. Doesn’t that sound bad?” So because he doesn’t elaborate on them, I can say, “Actually this makes sense for X,” and not even be that lengthy in my reply, but then just hit it point by point and then throw that back to him.
Nate Sala:
So I’m curious to get your thoughts on this. One of the things that I would teach my students, there was a kind of a cliché saying floating around at the time, and the more I thought about it, I was like, “My goodness. I really do think this is true.” Because we talk about frameworks, and framework is really just narrating… The way I define it is narrating the debate, narrating the discussion to your audience, so that they can better understand what’s going on. Especially in really technical topics and discussions, narrating it to them so that they have a way to think through the debate, but you’re also, you’re kind of… You’re bringing them over to your side because you’re narrating it in a way that’s advantageous to your position. And so-
Trent Horn:
And from my point of view, yeah.
Nate Sala:
Exactly. And which is what you’ve done, right? And you’re going to hear from my opponent in a minute and he’s going to say X, Y, and Z, and here’s why that’s wrong or wrongheaded. So here’s the cliché statement, and I’m curious to get your thought. The one who lays a better framework more often than not wins, regardless of any other thing, whether the arguments are more valid than the other… None of that. It’s the one who lays a better framework. What do you think about that in your experience?
Trent Horn:
No. I think that’s correct, that when people walk away from the debate, they want a story in their head about what happened. They hear arguments back and forth, and it’s very difficult to keep up with all of the arguments, but I think it’s important. And one person who is very good at this is William Lane Craig, that when he does a debate, he’ll say, “I presented five arguments. My opponent didn’t reply to three of them, and two of them, here is what was wrong with his objection. I have given evidence to show it’s reasonable to believe in God. My opponent never showed there were good reasons either not believe and no reasons my arguments don’t work,” and so just walking people through. And you’re right. In my debates where I have failed to do this, they don’t go as well as debates where I am very disciplined and focused to say, “Here is what I am presenting.”
Trent Horn:
Especially if I am the negative, to hammer home my opponent needed to prove X. Did he prove X? No, because A, B, and C. And then when I have the affirmative to say, my argument is that we should believe X. This is true. I gave all of these reasons, but my opponent ignored these reasons and didn’t really show what was wrong with these reasons and to… And also to give a framework of… What’s very helpful is if you can say, and I think this came up in my debate with [Jay Dyer 00:26:17] on natural theology to say, “Look, my opponent, he is either going to… In saying Christians should not practice natural theology, he’s either doing natural theology in reverse, because he’s a presuppositionalist, or he’s fallaciously begging the question. It has to be one of the two.” And so when you say my opponent is doing one of these two unacceptable things so that you can see what we are each doing.
Trent Horn:
Or in my debate with James White. I think he got a little perturbed, I think, when I said, “My opponent is reading his theology into the Bible and I want… I believe the Bible should speak for itself.” And then he got up and he told everyone, “This is a Catholic who tells you this, people, who believes the assumption of Mary,” and I see he was really irked by that. But in my debate with him, I was actually very particular in my opening statement to not cite… I did not make this a Catholic-Protestant debate, because the topic that we were debating, eternal security, is something Protestants disagree about and have different views. So that’s why I made it very clear, “I’m going to cite the Bible and Roger Olson, or Martin Luther, or Robert [Gagnon 00:27:30] or other Protestant scholars. I’ve been talking about just the historic Christian position.”
Trent Horn:
And I felt that White, in bringing that up, I don’t mean… I don’t know. People can take it as they will. One might interpret that move as poisoning the well, as letting people know, “Hey, look where this gentleman is arguing from. It will take you down a road you may not want to go.” But that’s what I try to do, is have a framework. Say, “Here is how James White will argue, but here is problem A and problem B,” and I think that’s important. I think you’re absolutely right that you need to have a framework, and more importantly, people will be like, “What’s a framework? I don’t get it.” You need to tell the more persuasive story about what happened in the debate, basically.
Nate Sala:
That’s right. That’s right. So I was going to bring this up. I’m glad that you did because I was very happy to see that that’s what you did, and unhappy to see… So here’s the thing. In the videos, I can’t do full debates. It would be a four-hour… Nobody is going to watch this, Mr. Potato Head, talk about anything for four hours, so I have to zoom in on something that’s a little bit more spicy, which is cross-exam.
Nate Sala:
But going back to your opening statements, when James White made it, he didn’t make the whole thing about it, but he did bring up Protestantism versus Roman Catholicism. And I go, “No, that’s not what the topic is about.” So for you to come back and say, “This isn’t that.” And then a lot of your evidence was, “Yeah. Protestants against James White.” That was so brilliant. Good for you.
Trent Horn:
And that’s very helpful when you do debates. When you pick your sources, try to select neutral or opposing sources as much as possible. So let’s say you’re debating an atheist. What’s more persuasive is not you quote J.P. Moreland or William Lane Craig, as to why this atheist argument is bad. Quote Graham Oppy, J.L. Mackie, or Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens. You find a well-known atheist who can say the particular argument your atheist opponent is offering is not good because then it’s like, “Oh, wow. Even people on that side recognize the problem here,” and that really means a lot for people who are on the other side [inaudible 00:29:44] like, “Oh, wow. I didn’t know that Christopher Hitchens or Graham Oppy, or someone thought that this is just not a really good argument.” And so that’s why, when I was engaging White, I was very focused to not turn it into a Catholic-Protestant debate.
Trent Horn:
And also, I mean, I was actually debating in front of 1200 Calvinists at the G3 Conference to not get up there and be the snarky Catholic taking shots at Protestants. While I would love for them to look into the truth of the Catholic faith, at another time, probably, but to be present and be that ambassador. And much the same way, to make an analogy, if you’re going to be a Christian debater, don’t get up there taking your little hotshots at atheism, because you want to win these people over to Christ.
Nate Sala:
That’s right. That’s right.
Trent Horn:
Don’t let yourself getting snarky and taking jabs at people. You don’t want to do that. It’s fine to offer a little backhanded compliment or something if your opponent is being belligerent or is being a little bit over the top, but always keep in mind your audience comes first.
Nate Sala:
That’s good. That’s so good. And actually, it’s something that touches on where I’m going in a minute. We’ve sort of been tippy-toeing around this for a little while. One of the most requested videos that people ask me… Because every week, people will vote and tell me, “Hey, we want you to do this one.” And I missed all of these debates to when I was in the classroom, so I’m coming to these fresh, a lot of these.
Nate Sala:
But one of the most requested was you versus Matt Dillahunty on whether the resurrection is reasonable. You did a really great job. So my read on Matt Dillahunty is that he is somebody who plays different roles in the debate when it suits him best. So for example, when you pin him up against the wall, intellectually speaking as a debater, he’ll shift and he’ll put on the audience-member hat and all of the sudden he says, “Well, you haven’t convinced me.” It’s like, “Well, no. That’s not his job to sit here and be like that.” He is supposed to argue back, right? So what is your take on Matt Dillahunty as a debater?
Trent Horn:
Yeah. I think that Matt Dillahunty… What’s interesting is reminds me of how some pastors who are… Have good use of rhetoric when they use apologetics in Christian debates, that they don’t focus so much on arguments. They’ve got clever quips and turns of phrases to go after their opponent.
Trent Horn:
So I think when it comes to being a debater… Now, what was interesting in my [inaudible 00:32:17] with Matt Dillahunty, you might have noticed at that the beginning of that, Matt [Fradd 00:32:21]… The moderator and I and Matt were kind of talking back and forth, because I actually… I thought we were going to be doing that with formal rounds and rebuttals, not an extended dialogue period. So the format changed on me. It didn’t change on me. I overlooked that in the emails and because my previous debate on Matt Fradd’s channel had been a different format. I assumed it would just be the same format as the previous debate I had done there. There is another rule for you would-be debaters. Read the fine print. You don’t want to show up, and it’s a completely different format because doing 45-minute dialogue is way different than having rebuttal rounds. You have to prepare very differently.
Trent Horn:
So, but I still engaged him. And I think what Matt does, it’s interesting in his different formats, that I feel like sometimes he feels comfortable calling out weaknesses in other people’s arguments. But if he feels a bit overwhelmed by things, he’ll either do what others have called the Dillahunty Dodge, which is I’m just not convinced. And that’s what Matt did when he said… I said, “Is it reasonable to believe that Jesus existed?” And he said, “Well, I’m not convinced,” or, “I’m unsure.” And I interrupted him and said, “Matt, I’m not asking about you. I’m asking in general, about people in general. This is not about you.” And that’s important because some people, when they debate him, Matt does well if he treats the debate as… The debate was, can Matt Dillahunty be convinced God exists? I wasn’t convinced, so I win.
Nate Sala:
That’s right.
Trent Horn:
Of course. That’s a great topic. I wish I could have a topic. Is Trent Horn convinced of atheism? No. I won.
Nate Sala:
There you go. Right.
Trent Horn:
So I think that when it’s structural and people have an opportunity to point out the problematic elements. And they also have to be careful because as I said earlier, Matt, in some cases, not… It’s just in the cases when he does this, he becomes kind of a bulldog, that he becomes… And in cross-examination, it’s okay to interrupt people, but it’s not a license just to be a total steam roller to other people. And that’s why when that happens to you to not be flustered, and that’s why I kind of made light of it in the discussion to say, “Are you just going to pontificate, Matt? Are you going to let me give an answer? How am I supposed to answer your question if you won’t let me answer?” Just to let him know, you’re doing this because you just don’t want people to hear what I have to say.
Trent Horn:
So, yeah. So I think that it was helpful. And I think, especially for people on the fence, you go through the comments. It’s interesting with Matt. Whenever he goes and does debates, there’s 100,000 Matt Dillahunty fans that follow him. Because he’ll go to an obscure channel and do a debate, and that channel will be 2,000 views, 2,000 views, 180,000 views.
Trent Horn:
So I’m like, “Oh, Matt brings a sizable audience with him to watch these things.” And they’ll watch and be like, “Ah, Trent got destroyed,” between this and that. But I’m more interested in the people on the fence when they read through things to say, “I don’t think Matt really understands history very well. He doesn’t understand how history works,” and things like that, so… And that was similar in my debate with Alex O’Connor, seeing people saying, “I didn’t think that was his best one and I’m an atheist,” so that’s what I look for.
Nate Sala:
Yeah, no. That’s good. And for that sort of subsection of the audience, right? Quote-on-quote, the little things really do matter. And so going back to non-verbals, there was just a moment that stuck out to me where I was like, “Dang, man. That is so good.” And the thing is, I can’t handle my non-verbals. I have various backgrounds, and one of them… I probably shouldn’t mention this. This is going to be very embarrassing, but is acting, a little bit, for five seconds, but-
Trent Horn:
Oh, well I-
Nate Sala:
… so, but-
Trent Horn:
Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.
Nate Sala:
But you’ve got to be expressive in your face, and so to bring that into an environment where you have to have a poker face, I can’t do that really well. There was a moment in your debate where Matt Dillahunty, he said something like, “Oh my God. Why are you bringing up Alex O’Connor?”
Trent Horn:
When I brought up Alex O’Connor. That’s right.
Nate Sala:
Yeah. And this is what you did. You stopped, no change of expression on your face, and you go, “What’s wrong?” And I was like, “That is so good, man,” because it looks like Dillahunty is the one who is being weird and he was.
Trent Horn:
He’s getting emotional. He was. And that’s where it gets interesting to compare, because that’s one of the few exchanges where even many atheists say that Matt did not do very well. It was when Matt and Alex had an informal… They’re in a hotel room having an informal conversation about ethical veganism, about whether we ought to be vegans, and Matt isn’t. And so what was interesting in that exchange, because it was in-person, it was just in a hotel room and they were just chatting and they’re friends, they’re both atheist pals, you would imagine. And so Matt was kind of inhibited from bringing out his bulldog that he uses when he is in trouble to try to steamroll the other person, so he was doing a lot of dodging and seemed to be in a corner and couldn’t really answer Alex in that regard, and other atheists called him out on that.
Trent Horn:
And so that’s why I was bringing up because the… And the prompt for the debate with Matt was specific. Now I thought it would be helpful more than arguing did Jesus rise from the dead, I really focused on, is it reasonable to believe it? And that’s a very different prompt to say, “Look…” And that’s why I asked, “Matt, something could be reasonable and you choose to not believe in it.” That’s fine. And what that does is as the affirmative, it lowers the burden of proof for me. I don’t even have to prove that this happened. I just have to prove you’re not a crazy person for believing in it. It’s a good first step for some people who think it is crazy, and so it’s baby steps for people.
Trent Horn:
And so that’s why I wanted to show that Matt has a big problem, Matt Dillahunty has a big problem, if he can’t distinguish between something being reasonable and something being convincing, because what Matt does… Here we go. This is the inside with Matt Dillahunty. He’ll do his debates, and he thinks he’s proven Christianity is not reasonable because it’s not convincing to him, but they’re not the same thing, and a lot of people just think that those are the same thing. So I tried hard in that debate to show they’re not the same. You’ve got to give a reason to think this is unreasonable beyond just you’re not convinced.
Nate Sala:
No, that’s excellent. I mean, that’s exactly what I would do, so good for you. Good for you. One of the other most-requested videos was your debate with James White on internal security. I was very apprehensive to do that. If I can characterize it this way, I did another one. Put it this way. I’m much more comfortable doing Christians versus atheists. I’m not comfortable doing more… We’re on the same team where-
Trent Horn:
Intramural.
Nate Sala:
Yeah, exactly. So, because I did it before and it was on election or something like that, and boy. Various audience members came out and against me and all that stuff.
Trent Horn:
Well, I think you had a very fair review and closing verdict on the debate with [inaudible 00:39:08], but if you had another thought, go ahead.
Nate Sala:
Well, okay. So I concluded as such, but I mean feel free to take up some time and-
Trent Horn:
Well, yeah. Your evaluation of it, I thought was fair to look at. That debate, what it reminded me of, and your evaluation of it, it reminded me of the first Rocky movie, when Rocky fights Apollo Creed, okay? I was actually somewhat nervous going into that debate with James White. This was actually my very first Catholic-Protestant debate. Prior to that-
Nate Sala:
Oh?
Trent Horn:
Yeah. Prior to that, I had only debated really on atheism, or abortion, or did Jesus exist, so this was my first invitation to do a debate on a Catholic-Protestant issue, and it’s with James White, who his reputation precedes him as a debater. So I prepared a lot for it, but I was still nervous. And I feel like now reflecting on it four years later, if I could go back and do things, I would certainly do things differently in the cross examination to focus the argument more… Always little things like that.
Trent Horn:
But overall, so your analysis of it, so going in, it was kind of… Rocky is just this boxer from the streets of Philadelphia and he’s going to fight Apollo Creed. And then you get in the ring and suddenly it’s like, “Hey, Rocky has some punches Apollo Creed was not expecting.” This is not the knockout you would think of someone who is the veteran versus the rookie. And so in the movie, of course, Rocky, everyone thinks, “Oh, yeah, Rocky,” when he beats Apollo Creed. No, he does not beat Apollo Creed in Rocky. At the end of the match, it is a split decision where two of the refs technically say Apollo Creed because it didn’t end in a knockout. And that’s interesting, when you have a debate, very few debates end with a knockout. A debate where the other person is knocked out, I actually feel kind of bad for those situations. I feel like it’s almost not fair, to have someone who is so poorly prepared or just gets completely walked over.
Trent Horn:
So in boxing, you can win a boxing match via a knockout or via technical knockout, or through the judges will tally up the hits, the body blows, the deflections. And so in Rocky, it’s a split decision. So I think people might come away from my debate with James White as split decisions. Some people would side more with you or side with others, but overall I feel good because it’s pretty good that Rocky was able to do that. And I felt good like, “Hey, this is my first Catholic-Protestant debate with someone who has a lot of experience in this regard,” and I think it gave a lot of people a lot to think about on that particular position I was defending.
Trent Horn:
And my other goal was just for people to have a favorable view towards a Catholic defending Catholic doctrine, showing that we care very deeply about scripture and that I want to follow the scriptures and exegete them and present them well to others. And so if even if that is just my only goal, then I’m happy with that coming out there, but it’s always fun though, to see when you… It’s like being an athlete or whatever. You do the play-by-play. You look and say, “Ah, that was a good landing. Ah, I didn’t stick the landing there,” and you always have to look and then learn and grow and look forward to the next one, basically.
Nate Sala:
No, I appreciate that. You’re being very kind and very even-handed with this kind of thing, because I really thought about it later. And I mean, for anybody wondering, these are my fresh reactions. There is always somebody, but somebody said in the comment, “Oh, this guy must be watching these thousands of times.” No, I’m really just going in fresh. Well, as of this recording, I’m going to do the white… What Craig… The unbelievable thing.
Trent Horn:
Oh. Yes, yes. [crosstalk 00:42:57].
Nate Sala:
I’m going to do that soon, this Friday, and so I haven’t seen it. And people are like, “Hey man, did you…” Don’t tell me. I want to go in fresh. I don’t know, and I really do get the sense that… The Rocky thing is so apropos man. That is what it was. It was so close. I really do feel like if I watched it again, I’d say you won. That’s how close it was. It was so good. It felt so good to watch. It was just really great.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. And I think that, that is… That it’s helpful to see that, though… In general though, it’s interesting. And if you’re going to do this, by the way, people, and I’d love to see more people that debate. What’s hard is I get kind of jealous of the Protestant world because there is a lot of people who want to study, and it seems like there is a fair number of Protestants who want to get out there and do debate or dialogue on at least what we would call mere Christianity, the existence of God, resurrection of Jesus. I’m trying to get Catholics to get their butt in gear to do that kind of stuff, because I mean the people that I know who go out and want to do this and debate and will engage others on this… I mean, you’ve got the philosopher types like William Lane Craig or J.P. Moreland, or others like Frank Turek or J. Warner Wallace, or even people like Braxton Hunter like, “Hey. Good job. You’re getting out there and doing that.”
Trent Horn:
But then I look out in the Catholic world and it’s tumble weeds. Sometimes, they’ll do debates on Catholic-Protestant stuff, but I’m like, “Guys, we’ve got to defend the core essence of this.” So, yeah. Yeah. Otherwise, it’s good to see, and then that’s why it’s always important just to try to learn from what you’re doing to grow, and to teach others to manifest this in a gracious way. Because what if I get hit by a bus?
Nate Sala:
Maybe it’s just one of those things where you’re a little bit ahead of the curve, and you’ll be the model that others see, and then they’ll… Before you know it, five, 10 years down the road, we’ll have a lot of Trent Horns out there, you know what I mean?
Trent Horn:
And that’s what’s important, if you want to do this kind of… Because the other temptation, because I think this is helpful, because I’m sure there are some people watching your channel who would love to do this stuff, and if they’re called to it, they should do that.
Trent Horn:
And there’s ways to tell that. You can pray and have an internal call, but one way of telling if you’re called to do this is really going to be the reviews. You really have to look at them and you have to honest… You’ve got to be honest about it. Because I have seen some people who go and do debates like this, and I think they do a disservice. This is not their skillset and they should focus on something else. Now, you’re not always going to bat 1000, but I think in general, if you’re getting general positive reviews… When I, they had that engagement with White, I felt like it went well because I went and looked at comments and reviews and saw a wide variety of them.
Trent Horn:
The most interesting reviews for me on debates are from people who don’t have a dog in the fight. It’s rare to find it, but sometimes you can. So for example, with White, I looked up a Mormon apologist who probably is still closer to my view, but is still somewhat far removed, saying, “Yeah, I think that Trent actually had this here.” Sometimes you can tell how a debate went by looking… And this is something you might want to comment on in a future episode. A new trend is people will offer debriefs or reviews of the debates that they did, and so that’s something new that I’ve seen. And I noticed that in White’s review of our or debate, it was not as celebratory as I had seen in when he talks about other debates that he’s done and talks about them.
Trent Horn:
And so sometimes I can get that. There’s a lot more explaining about how to under… When you have to say, to explain how to understand a debate, it’s like you may feel it went as well as you would have hoped. Although I will say when it comes to debate reviews, I think those are fine to do. I mean, well, especially what you do is you’re third party. Let’s take a look at this. If you review your own debate, it’s fine, just don’t use it… I’ve seen some people where they played the whole debate and gave a commentary. I’m like, “Dude, you’re redoing the debate, man. You’ve got to let it go.”
Nate Sala:
Right. Exactly. No, that’s really great. Well, I mean, here’s the thing, too. The debate teacher thing was a gimmick, so I don’t know if I’m breaking people’s hearts, but this is not where my heart is. The debate teacher thing was a way to get people more aware of the ministry that I’ve established for years. The ministry’s more in evangelism, effective evangelism techniques, discipleship and things like that. The more I look at this, there really is a broad realm of categories and videos that you could possibly do under this little niche that you and I are discussing right now, so-
Trent Horn:
And I think it’s important, what you’re doing. Because people might say, “Well, how is this evangelism? He’s sitting around ranking debates,” or things like that.
Nate Sala:
Correct.
Trent Horn:
No, it is. Because when people say, “Why do you do debates?” I tell them, I actually don’t do debates in order to end the discussion on a topic, but to start it, because I always counsel people, a debate is not a good way to arrive at the truth of a subject because you could have a subject where you’ve got a true and a false position, but the true position is defended by someone who doesn’t know how to debate, so they don’t defend it very well, so it’s a reflection on the performance of the debaters. So then why do we do debates then? Well, because they’re entertaining. They’re entertaining and they get us interested in an issue.
Trent Horn:
Let’s say you’re going to do the review of White and Craig on Calvinism, Molinism, way more people are going to watch that than will read an article analyzing the theological significance of Calvinism and Molinism on the question of divine [inaudible 00:48:57] knowledge. Few people are going to read an article like that, but it’s fun to watch two people spar on that.
Trent Horn:
And so what I see is that the debates, especially people on the fence, whether it’s Christianity or atheism, whatever it is, if you’re on the fence, “Oh, I want to figure out more of these arguments in these things,” so it gets people more into the subject to do… That’s my goal, is to get people more fascinated by the subject to do their own research and investigation. But hopefully as they do it, to see [inaudible 00:49:27] they have a partiality to the side I’ve represented because of the technique that I used and the evidence I presented.
Nate Sala:
Right. That’s great. That’s great. Do we have a few more minutes? I know we’re running up on time here.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. Actually, I’ve got a lot of time. Don’t stress. I mean, this is… It’s fun. It’s fun to talk shop with people. Plus I work from home, so I don’t get to talk to grownups very much.
Nate Sala:
Oh, excellent. All right. I feel like we’re the same age. I’m 42. I don’t want you to call yourself out there, but I feel like we’re relatively the same age, so-
Trent Horn:
Well I think we’re a part of the same… I think that I’m a geriatric millennial, and so you would be a baby gen Xer, basically is where we would be. Because well, I’m going to be 37 in January, so we’re around that same time period, so-
Nate Sala:
Yeah. Well we would have a lot of shared experiences, I’m sure, growing up in the late ’80s, early ’90s. Well, so then let me close with a couple questions about evangelism because that’s… Like I said, that’s where I’m at. Coming out of all the debates that you’ve done, what is your favorite go-to argument or thing to say in regular conversations?
Trent Horn:
Oh, you mean my favorite thing to say just if I’m talking to people about the faith?
Nate Sala:
Yeah.
Trent Horn:
Or in a debate?
Nate Sala:
You’re engaging regular folk. Not an interlocutor on stage, but just regular folks.
Trent Horn:
Yeah. Well honestly, my favorite thing to say is more to ask them… My favorite question to ask them, which would be some… And so this would be borrowed a lot from the Christian apologist, Greg Koukl and his work, Tactics, to say… Because when you talk to people, even when I’m in a debate, I sometimes will pose questions for people rather than statements, like in my debate with White to say, “Well, how do you know a Bible passage about the loss of salvation is prescriptive rather than descriptive? And then what method do you use to objectively determine that?” Rather than saying he is wrong about passage one, two, three, four, and five, and I did do that, but to say… I posed that question. Someone is like, “Oh, yeah. Well, how? How would I be able to determine that?” When you leave someone with a question that bothers them, it’s more effective, I think, even than a very solid argument.
Trent Horn:
So more what I want to leave people with is how do you know X is true? Or at least, how did you come to believe that? Or a question I sometimes like to ask them is, “That’s really interesting. What do you think is the strongest argument against that view and what would you say to it?” And then if they can’t answer, it’s… And I’ve talked to atheists a lot about this because it’s very hard to get atheists… No set of premises is just going to lead to, “Oh, there’s a God,” right there. It’s always going to be like, “That’s just your little silly little argument.”
Trent Horn:
Okay. Well, what do you think is the best argument or best reason and what’s wrong with it? Or what would convince you? What kind of evidence would? I find it’s very important in conversations and also in debates to do this as well, leave someone with a question that causes them to doubt a pillar of a false belief that they hold, and then that will leave room for your true belief to aid that person to come to know the truth.
Nate Sala:
No, that’s excellent. And that’s exactly what I would advocate for as well, is there is more of a… Well to bring it over from using debate language, cross-examination is a lot more effective in a regular guise or in a regular setting than making a affirmative, constructive… An opening statement, because when it comes to… So maybe you can let me know what you think about this, but when it comes to people, especially those who… They’re talking about difficult subjects. Religion, Christianity especially, that’s not very popular anymore to just walk up to people cold and talk about. So you’re dealing with barriers, defenses… People are very defensive, and so you’re trying to overcome those barriers. You can do so much better with a gentle cross examination-style question than a statement.
Trent Horn:
Right. Absolutely. So instead of talking about a controversial point of Christian morality, you can ask, “Oh, okay. Well, what do you think morality is? Do you think it’s something that we invented or we discovered it?” Because if we discovered it, we can’t really change it. If we invented it, we could change it, but it doesn’t seem like we could just all decide to make it really bad. Or if we did, you would say, “Oh, well we could.”
Trent Horn:
And I say, “Okay. Well if people did, would you go along with it or not?” “Well I go with my personal moral code.” Okay, well how do you know when your personal moral code is right or wrong? Have you ever done something where you felt guilty? If you are the source of the code, you can always just kind of change it so you don’t feel bad. And so there you go, and so you’re asking… So there, you’re not boxed in on a controversial point they’re having a hard time with. You’re going back to basics and back to the foundational levels.
Nate Sala:
Right. And again, as Christians, I would say we need to do work exegeting the scriptures, obviously. But I think as Christians, especially today, we should exegete people, and if we do that, then we see that there is this other thing that’s going on.
Nate Sala:
And I’m not saying it’s a good thing, but we… A lot of us really walk around the world thinking that we’re master and commander of our own vessel. And so Galileo said a long time ago, you cannot teach a man anything. Ladies in the audience, you know what I’m talking about, right? You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him to find it within himself. And so, again, asking those questions leads them there, but they think they’re the ones doing it.
Trent Horn:
Right. You are guiding them down that path, and that’s why it’s important. We know as Christians that we do not have the power to convert people, only the Holy Spirit can bring someone to faith. But what we can do is we can remove obstacles to receiving the Holy Spirit and give people questions that prime them, so to speak, to be open to that movement of the Spirit in their life.
Trent Horn:
And that’s our role. As St. Paul says out of the Corinthians, we are… [inaudible 00:55:26] Corinthians 3, we are God’s coworkers, that we… In planting the field. It says we are his coworkers, that we don’t… We aren’t involved in moving someone to the moment of salvation, but we do prepare the path so the spirit can move them to that.
Nate Sala:
Yeah. That’s good. That’s good. I think we’re already kind of touching on this, so… Because we’re talking about elements of debates that can actually help us in regular conversations. Not a lot of us are going to be on stage doing this kind of a thing in a formal sense, but definitely all of us can get out there and fulfill the great commission with the people that got has placed in our lives. So what are some ways, though, that… You can’t just take a debate and drop it right down on top of a regular conversation, so what are some ways that debates can not help us or hinder us in regular conversations?
Trent Horn:
Sure. Well, they can hinder us if we treat interpersonal conversations like debates. That’s a bad idea. So for example, when I do debates, my goal is not to cause Dan Barker or Matt Dillahunty to become Christian or James White to become Catholic. That would be an excellent bonus if that were to happen, but I’m not counting on it.
Trent Horn:
Well, my goal is to reach those people sitting on the fence, who are listening in and they… And that they come away and say, “That guy had a lot of good information and he was confident and he didn’t lash out at the other guy. I want to see more of what he has to say,” so that… So even if I’m kind of having a little fun a little bit or with my opponent or back-and-forth playfulness, it’s okay because I’m more playing to the people watching.
Trent Horn:
But the problem is, those people, if I talk to them, I do not treat them like a debate opponent, for I really do hope that I have a reasonable chance of if they’re on the fence and having a conversation with them, a friend to family member, to help them to see what is… What I believe and they come to believe it. And also I have an added benefit. My debate, I’ve got two hours, that’s it. With this person, I have ideally a relationship so I can take it at a slow pace. Because in a debate, you’ve got to rock, you’ve got to run hard. You’ve got a 15-minute opening statement. Get it all in there, and if you don’t get it in there, tough. But in a real relationship, oh. I can take baby steps with the person. I can walk them through it step by step, so I’m not in a debate. I’m toe to toe. So you cannot take that in a conversation. Conversation is shoulder to shoulder, that I’m walking alongside this individual.
Trent Horn:
Now I do think debates can serve a role here. When you’re engaging people in conversation, you might say, “Yeah. It was really good talking about this. Hey, by the way, you might want to watch this debate.” I might send you my debate with Alex O’Connor or Ben Watkins on atheism and say, “You might want to watch this.” Because they might be more willing to watch a debate than a talk on something they disagree with, because at least they get to see their guy up there, and then you can engage one another in that regard. So I think that in our interpersonal conversations, treating them like debates will hinder evangelism. You have to treat them as dialogue and as baby steps in conversation.
Trent Horn:
And then something just I touched on before, would just be debates can hinder evangelization if your… Just if you’re bad at them or you’re uncharitable, or the worst combination, you’re both bad and uncharitable. I don’t know. I think I would rather have a charitable person who is not super intelligent than a smart person that everyone just thinks is a total jackass. I don’t know. It’s a hard one. I, personally, would rather be someone that someone thinks that, “Oh, I’m wrong about this,” rather than… Well, it’s hard. I don’t know, because sometimes I feel like… I would want them to think Christianity is true. I would rather have them think Christianity is true and I’m a jackass than that I’m nice and Christianity is false. I would rather make that sacrifice.
Trent Horn:
But on the other hand, I feel like being un-Christ-like can push people away further than just a mere absence of knowledge. I guess here is why. I feel like it’s easier. If you come across someone who is an ill-informed, nice Christian, it’s easier to fix that with information later. “I met a Christian. They were super nice, but they don’t really know a lot.” And then I would say, “Oh, well he didn’t know about this.” “Oh, wow. That’s really good information to know.” It’s easier to fix a lack of information. It’s harder to fix a lack of charity. You run into one Christian who is a jackass… That’s just a fun work to say. That no matter how many other nice Christians you put out there afterwards, that one still sticks with you, and it’s hard to shake.
Trent Horn:
So I think that that would be, yes. I would prefer a person to be charitable and ill-informed, because it is easier to fix the lack of information later and get them to all these great resources that are out there. But in general, so if you want to do debates, you have to make sure you are informed and you’re charitable. And if you have that, give it a try, have Nate review your debates, see where you can grow, see how it’s going, and go out there. There’s a little discord. There’s other small venues to do it, but just practice being informed, prepared, and charitable.
Nate Sala:
No, that’s real good. And I think the Apostle Paul agrees with you, because when you’re saying this, I think of, first, Corinthians 13 where he is like, “Look, you can be the smartest…” Paraphrased. “At least you can be the smartest person in the room, you could have all of these abilities and giftings, but if you do not have love, you’re nothing.”
Nate Sala:
And, yeah. That I think you’re absolutely correct on that. It does come back to relationship at the end of the day. This is how I try to get the people around me to think about this. What is the greatest commandment? Right? Jesus is approached in his ministry and he’s challenged a little bit. What’s the greatest commandment? And he gives the [inaudible 01:01:26] right? Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. It’s not win debates. It’s not be the most effective communicator. It’s love, and if it’s communicated in love, it will be received in love.
Trent Horn:
And they’re not mutually exclusive. So I’ll give you an example.
Nate Sala:
That’s right.
Trent Horn:
Some people that I have debated, we still have somewhat of an adversarial relationship afterwards, engaging our work and back and forth, and that’s fine. That’s the spirit of the game when you do apologetics. But there’s other people that I have engaged in formal debates or formal dialogues, and I consider them charitable and I would consider them to be friends.
Trent Horn:
I think one example would be, I did my debate with Ben Watkins at… That’s probably one of the best debates that I’ve ever taken part in. Ben was extremely well-prepared, gave one of the best defenses for atheism I’ve seen. Now I think that I responded very well, point for point, on everything. But Ben is a really nice guy. We stayed at the hotel together, I drove him to and from the venue, we hung out at the hotel bar afterwards, and we both care a lot about truth. And we can be friends and talk about even non-atheist, Christian stuff and have common ground and engage with one another, because we both care about the truth and we’re not out just to win debates. That’s the key.
Trent Horn:
So at the end of that debate, this was hosted on Cameron Bertuzzi’s Capturing Christianity channel. So we did the debate, does God exist? Very high-level debate, very sophisticated, philosophical atheism, went back and forth. At the very end of the debate, we shook hands. I think we hugged, actually, at the end of the debate, and Ben said to me, “We did it. We did it,” as in both he and I had accomplished the goal of presenting the best position for each side for people to determine, and so it was mutually enriching in that regard. And I still enjoy talking with Ben. In fact, Ben and I, we did a devil’s advocate debate recently where… On abortion, where I was pro-choice and Ben was pro-life-
Nate Sala:
Wow.
Trent Horn:
… and so we switched. And actually, I’ll have to talk to you later about that. I have mixed feelings about devil’s advocate debates. I don’t think I would really do them a lot in the future. I took this particular one on abortion because I felt it was a consistent yet repugnant position, so even if I defend it well, people would be scared off by it, so I didn’t mind necessarily defending it, but there we were… And so we were able to come at truth, and he did a very good job defending the pro-life view.
Trent Horn:
So Ben is an example there. And there’s other people that I have engaged and hope to engage in the future, but I think we could have that rapport. So we should have these relationships, and even when it comes to debates, you can have them with people you formally engaged, if both of you are honest about seeking the truth.
Nate Sala:
That’s right. That’s right. And this is what I hope. I really do hope that everybody watching really listens to your answer there, because I’m trying to communicate this as much as possible in the interaction section and the comment section, but… As a viewer, when you’re going to find a debate to watch, you really should be looking for that filet mignon. You should be looking for the best of the best. The two guys or, whatever, ladies… They’re operating on all thrusters on both sides, so you get the best views on both sides, and I really do hope that that comes across, so.
Trent Horn:
I also hope we get more women out there to do debates. Men have a natural predisposition to want to bang our heads together like rams. We are just naturally disposed that way. It’s only men could invent football, a game where you literally just run your heads into each other.
Trent Horn:
But women can bring very valuable contributions to debate. One of my favorite debaters is a woman named Stephanie Gray Connors. So Stephanie, she has done several debates. She does debates primarily on abortion, though she’s branching out into other bioethics issues. But Stephanie brings a wonderful charm and charisma. I think a friend of mine said that she can just… Well, he put it in a cruder way than I would have, that she can just destroy opponents by sticking in the knife with just this wonderful angelic smile. And of course, Stephanie does not mean to… She’s never been cruel or uncharitable, but she can just demolish a pro-choice position, but she still is very charitable and kind when she’s engaging other people. But there aren’t as many women involved in debate-
Nate Sala:
You’re right.
Trent Horn:
… as I’d like to see, so I’d love to see more and I would recommend… I’m sure there’s women that watch your channel and my channel. If you feel called to it, give it a go. We’d love to see more of that representation out there.
Nate Sala:
Excellent. Yeah. Agreed. Totally agree. Trent, I thank you so much for your time. I’m really enjoying this, but we’re coming to a close and I want to make sure that you let everybody know what’s upcoming for you. You’ve got any projects or any other debates maybe down the line?
Trent Horn:
Sure. Well, I’ve submitted a book. It’s a dialogue book with my inner skeptic, so it’s where I debate me, the hardest-
Nate Sala:
Oh, wow.
Trent Horn:
… [crosstalk 01:06:33] to debate. So I’ve got a book where I dialogue with my internal sense of doubt and people, I think, will like that. Working on other writing right now. I’ve got a few debates and public dialogues set up for 2022 that I’m going through. One would be a Catholic-Protestant debate on Mary, so that’s hopefully going to be… That’s confirmed for April. February, March, I’m hoping to do a dialogue, two dialogues on the Kalam cosmological argument, one with an atheist and another with a Catholic, who disagrees with me about the argument’s soundness, so it’s a little intramural in that regard.
Trent Horn:
And then after that, maybe this summer, this is still very TBD, but I’ve been engaging the work of a Protestant scholar, Gavin Ortlund, who is a very charitable, intelligent individual. He has a channel called Truth Unites. I published a response to him on purgatory, and so I’m hoping maybe to do a series of dialogues with him, maybe even something in-person. We’ll just have to see.
Trent Horn:
But they’re a lot of fun. Debates are one of my favorite things. What’s funny is I’m kind of scaling back my public speaking schedule. I don’t do talks as much because I kind of feel like audio animatronic when I give a talk. I’m like, “Ah. It’s the same old talk,” but debates, it’s just you never know what you’re going to get, so they’re a lot of fun.
Nate Sala:
Yeah. Well, like I said, it’s quite a treat to watch you do your thing. You’re really good at it, and I just want to encourage you, man. Just keep doing what you’re doing, and we’ll be watching. And-
Trent Horn:
I appreciate it. Oh, and I’ll let viewers know, if they want to get more of my materials, I would definitely recommend my podcast, The Counsel of Trent, C-O-U-N-S-E-L, counsel, and that is available on iTunes, Google Play, and on YouTube as well.
If you like today’s episode become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member-only content. For more information, visit [Trenthornpodcast.com 01:08:33].