Teaching people debating and teaching people reasoning aren't the same thing. Secondarly you are likely better at actually teaching skills if you focus on a different example. Most atheists reading along likely will cheer for "team atheist" instead of engaging in critical reasoning.
I'm trying to present a style of debate which only works if you're actually right. If you follow it and you're wrong, it'll show you that you're wrong in the end.
It is my hope that even the least critical thinkers might adopt the techniques for the sake of "winning," and then find them sufficiently useful that they use them in all discussions, theological or not.
I'm trying to present a style of debate which only works if you're actually right. If you follow it and you're wrong, it'll show you that you're wrong in the end.
Basically you say that it's a technique that can be used to identify your own wrong beliefs. How many of your own wrong beliefs have you identified with it?
It is my hope that even the least critical thinkers might adopt the techniques for the sake of "winning," and then find them sufficiently useful that they use them in all discussions, theological or not.
If that's your hope than picking an example that doesn't trigger tribalism would likely improve the chances that a reader engages in critical thinking.
Sorry if it seems harsh but it really seemed to me that you were arguing with a strawman. A very shallow one, by the way, who made an awful lot of "beginner's mistakes".
Mistakes in reasoning or in "defending" his idea?
Are there ways he should be defending his idea because of its merit, or just ways he could defend his idea, by being irrational?
I don't think the person you presented looks like the average believer. It might be useful to actually engage with real world people.
I don't think Theo in the dialogues is meant to be like an average believer; nor is Art meant to be like an average nonbeliever. Rather, the whole debate is there mostly as a hook on which to hang various lessons in how to address difficult and contentious topics. A real debater who spoke like Art would probably sound annoyingly pedantic and pompous (with the constant refrain of "now I am going to apply such-and-such a technique"), but of course those bits are really addressed to the reader much more than they are to Theo.
The OP writes atheists will be able to discuss theology more effectively with theists after reading it. As such I would expect the article to actually debate the position of real theists.
In general I'm weary of using examples that are far removed from a sincere attempt at learning the truth to teach reasoning.
use the word "But" less; consider regularly replacing it with "and" (for most cases on your first two posts).
the word but implies the negative of the earlier point.
generally: ABC but on the contrary XYZ
You were using it in places where you weren't disagreeing with the early point. It's still readable but it's better to use "and" instead. That way when you bridge points and don't want to be disagreeing with them people will understand what you are saying better.
Inspired by the call to go forth and make rationality reign...
I've started a blog at http://www.bettertoknow.wordpress.com
It teaches discussion/debate techniques by showing them at work in a dialogue about the existence of God.
I don't expect theists to read it much, but atheists will be able to discuss theology (and everything else) more effectively with theists (and everyone else) after reading it.
With that in mind, I'd much appreciate critique of the plan and execution.
Am I thinking clearly? Am I expressing the ideas well? Am I taking too long to say things, using too great inferential distances, or strawmanning?
And on another level, am I using the wrong website to blog? Are my posts too long? Are they missing some important element? Should I be doing anything differently?