Debate Teacher Reacts: Greg Koukl vs. John Baker

Got another Debate Teacher Reacts for ya! :) This time around it's Greg Koukl vs. John Baker on the topic: Do Objective Moral Truths Exist? Who was the better debater? Who missed the boat? Find out in this video!

[elijahmcgrath]

I'm surprised you don't have more subscribers yet! Your content has helped me a lot, and its really high quality. I'm sure it can be frustrating with producing good content and not seeing too much results, but please keep it up! It means a lot to people like me

[CaliforniaKevman]

I want to see Dr. James White vs. Dr. Michael Brown, Also there is a Debate those two did together against Joseph Good and Sir Anthony Buzzard on the Trinity.

[sanctuary]

Thanks Nate, I’ve had Koukl’s book on my shelf for years…he was clear and articulate, time to dust it off…thanks brother.

[seeqr]

You seem to be covering all of the debates I’ve watched over the past few years. I usually revisit them from time to time with older eyes to see if there’s something new. Thank you for contributing something new and invaluable to this journey. God bless you and yours.

[sensereference]

As a non-Christian it is frustrating watching these debates. The atheists seem to either not have thought seriously about the topic of moral ontology or they understand the issue but are just filibustering because they don't want to concede certain points. The only debate I saw on this topic where the atheist seemed to really know their stuff was the Shelly Kagan debate, but that was apparently not even a debate. WLC addressed that debate in a follow-up article where he said, "our hosts with the Veritas Forum had made it very clear to me that they were not interested in having a knock-down debate but a friendly dialogue that would foster a warm and inviting atmosphere for non-believing students at Columbia. The goal was simply to get the issues out on the table in a congenial, welcoming environment, which I think we did."

Does anyone know of a debate where an atheist did a decent job of at least addressing the issue of moral ontology?

[nancysteiner]

I Love this series! Please continue to do more!👍
BTW Doc Holiday actually says, "I'm your huckle bearer." The handles on the side of a casket are called huckles. He is supporting his friend by essentially offering to be his pallbearer.😊👍

[petery]

Can you put Paulogia vs Sean McDowell on the Fate of the Apostles on the DTR list?

[joserivera]

"This guy doesn't like his own microphone." 😂

[ManForToday]

On this topic I highly recommend the debate with WLC vs Walter Scott - very Shagan Kelly-esque.

[Eric-ozdh]

Matt Dillihunty vs Sye Ten Bruggencate please!

[sanctuary]

17:38 what Baker is really asking is, ‘please make my argument for me’…and Im thinking, hang on, isn’t that your job? (scratching my head)

[globalconfideration]

Question; Why is it wrong to inflict pain on someone?

Answer: yes;)

Q: why?

Q(&A): what do you think is wrong with my answer?

[vyrg]

would love to see a reaction on the recent debate between Matt Slick and Carlos moderated by the Marlon from the Gospel Truth

[MrSheepishLion]

You need to do Craig v Wolpert. The atheist didn't stand a chance, but he was just so darn likeable. Clearly a favorite prof, but woefully unprepared to step in the ring with Craig.

[charlieallen]

Just a friendly reminder, James white versus Roger Perkins, thanks guys!

[Derek_Baumgartner]

Seems like Dr. Baker's view on evil is "(Unnecessary) Pain is wrong."
When pressed, his position seem to crystalize into "(Unnecessary) Pain is *self-evidently* wrong" - which has all sorts of issues!

Further, he said that 'moralities' have, to paraphrase, a 'function': that is, their function is to address the human predicament.
In other words, that 'moralities' exist purely for utilitarian purposes: pragmatism, as in there's nothing self-evident about them, they're just a means to an end.
...yet on his view, pain is so self-evidently wrong, that it *ought* to be in each morality worthy of note, or that morality is wrong.

The issue arises pretty clearly that he's a moral realist, if he thinks an ought of any kind exists for any worldview, since he keeps coming back to his foundation "What's wrong with pain? It hurts." As in:
"Why is X right? Because X is right. Why can't you see how obviously true that is?"

...which is arguing for Koukl's position that objective moral truths exist, even if he doesn't agree about *which* objective truths exist.

Not that I'm an expert. :P

[sanctuary]

26:17 this is interesting and kind of weird, because Baker’s view is one of relativism as far as I can tell. I didn’t hear him make a case for a third option.

[introvertedchristian]

It's too bad the Sabina Magliocco debate wasn't on video. It's basically the same debate, but the audio was better, and she was a much better speaker. It was a fun debate to listen to, too. And it was short and sweet.

[williammcenaney]

I would say "truths about morality" instead of "moral values."

[BerishaFatian]

Since when does Colonel Sanders debate people??