Dan Barker to James White: Don't quote me

"White is obnoxious. His approach is ad hominem."

If this doesn't make you laugh, then you need a lesson in irony.

@ jigawatt: Are you quoting someone else or are you saying that James White's approach is an ad hominem fallacy? If its the latter, could you please explain where he made this error?
Thanks

Thanks jigawatt. And you are right that is funny.

@ Moonshadow: For your information Dan Barker did open the debate, so obviously you haven't actually heard it. And judging from your other comments ("The problem is James White can't think on his feet.") you probably haven't heard ANY of James White's debates. Regardless of what your opinion might be about his demeanor or his position on the topic, James White is absolutely without question one of the best scholarly debaters in the business. He always does thorough, competent research on the subject matter and his oponent.

Mr. Barker, on the other hand, often proves himself to be completely inadequate as a debater, incompetent as a researcher, and ineffectual as a speaker. His debate record proves that he has no real interest in his topics. After listening to many of his debates I am left with the impression that he does this simply for the publicity. The real difference between the two is that Mr. White actually has an interest (and an education) in the subject matter being debated. Whereas Mr. Barker just wants to be a celebrity and the only way that he can attract attention to himself is by playing this “preacher-turned-atheist” role.