142 - Debate Teacher Reacts - Nate Sala

Summary
Nate Sala shares his journey from leaving the church to becoming a Christian, his ministry Wise Disciple, and his insights on debate and persuasion. He discusses the importance of objectivity in debate analysis and the criteria for judging debates. The conversation covers various aspects of debate preparation, styles, and strategies, as well as the role of emotion and rhetoric in debates. It also delves into the significance of cross-examination and the art of debate, along with the impact of personal biases and emotional connections in the context of debates. The conversation concludes with a discussion on the host's channel and its content.
Takeaways

• Nate Sala's personal journey from leaving the church to becoming a Christian highlights the role of apologetics in evangelism.
• Wise Disciple ministry focuses on helping Christians effectively incorporate theology and apologetics into their conversations.
• Nate Sala's insights on debate and persuasion emphasize the importance of objectivity and the criteria for judging debates. Debate preparation involves considering the opponent, the topic, and the audience.
• Emotional connection and rhetoric play a significant role in debates, alongside logical arguments.
• Cross-examination is a crucial aspect of debates, allowing debaters to showcase their critical thinking abilities.
• Personal biases and emotional connections can influence the analysis and perception of debates.
• The guest's channel offers content on debate analysis, sermon breakdowns, and Bible study sessions.

Chapters
00:00 Introduction to the Podcast
02:12 The Journey to Faith and Ministry
09:06 Insights on Debate and Persuasion
26:14 Emotion and Rhetoric in Debates
33:41 The Significance of Cross-Examination
45:26 Exploring the Host's Channel and Content

================================
We appreciate your feedback.
If you’re on TWITTER, you can follow Chad @TBapologetics.
You can follow Brian @TheBrianAuten
And of course, you can follow @Apologetics315
If you have a question or comment for the podcast, record it and send it our way using www.speakpipe.com/Apologetics315 or you can email us at [e-mail]

Episode Transcript

(00:01):
Hello, and welcome to the Apologeticsthree fifteen podcast with your hosts Brian Auten
and Chad Gross. Join us forconversations and interviews on the topics of apologetics,
evangelism, and the Christian worldview.I have to do this alone.
Hello, this is Chad Gross ofthe Apologetics three fifteen podcast. I am

(00:26):
coming to you today flying solo withoutthe heart of the Apologetics three fifteen podcast,
mister Brian Aughton. He is offdoing important ghost busting investigating. So
I am at the helm today.Now, I will freely admit this is
my first ever interview by myself,So this is either going to be a

(00:47):
very monumental moment for me or acrash and burn. But thanks for coming
along with me regardless. But I'mexcited about today because we have coming onto
the podcast and Nate Salah of WiseDisciples Men, and I stumbled across Nate's
work when I found these YouTube videoscalled Debate Teacher Reacts, and I watched

(01:11):
the first one and lo and behold, I ended up benge watching them.
And you're going to learn more aboutwhat those are, but they're pretty much
what they sound like. Let metell you a little bit about Nate Salah.
He grew up in a church butleft after graduating high school. While
his pastors had spent a lot oftime teaching Nate the content of the Bible,
no one had explained to him whyany of it was true. After

(01:32):
converting to Christianity as an adult,Nate immediately recognized the necessity of apologetics as
a component of evangelism in the twentyfirst century, to which I say amen.
In twenty thirteen, he created WiseDisciple to help Christians effectively incorporate theology
and apologetics into their conversations. Today, Nate is a pastor, speaker,

(01:52):
and teacher. His degrees in religionand curriculum and instruction give nat a unique
insight into the teaching and communication methodof christ. And if you're interested in
learning more about Nate and is excellentresources, I do encourage you to check
out whysdisciple dot org. Now allthat being said, today, what we're
going to be talking to Nate aboutis debate. For those who are regular

(02:15):
listen listeners to the Apologetics three fifteenpodcast, you know that I in particular
love debates. They're kind of mysuper Bowl in the same way people get
excited about certain sporting events. That'show I get excited about debates. And
so today we're going to be talkingto Nate about things like, are debates
even valuable, what's the best wayto prepare for a debate, how do

(02:38):
you objectively judge a debate? Andfinally, but not limited to, we're
even going to be asking him whatare some of his favorite debates? And
so I'm excited about the discussion.I Appreciateha joining us. So let's get
to the interview. Let's get ready. Switch me on. All right,

(02:59):
Nate Sala, welcome to the podcast. Thanks for having me. Yes,
absolutely, I am so excited tohave the only other Samoan that is working
in social media. You and theRock. Right, that's right. You're
making moves. That's right. That'swhat it is, making moves and media.

(03:19):
That's right, you, You andthe Rock. So tell us a
little bit about yourself and how youbecame a Christian. Yeah, I well,
so you brought up Samoa. SoI was born in American Samoa and
my mom and dad they met inthe seventies. But it's an interesting combination
because I'm ethnically ambiguous. I don'tknow if you've so your audience is probably

(03:40):
audio only, but if you lookup a photo of mine, you know
there's a lot of things that Icould be. Most of it is Filipino.
People think I am, but actuallyI'm half Simoan and I'm also part
Arabic. So yeah. My parentsthey met in a very unique way,
fell in love, and I was, like I said, I was born
in American Samola, grew up inchurch, so we went to Calvary Chapels

(04:03):
quite a bit. My parents wereactively involved. My dad's a prolific musician,
and I also learned how to playinstruments and things. But I was
just not saved. So I hadthis interesting sort of pastor kid kind of
reaction to the Bible and the thingsthat I was being taught. I knew

(04:25):
how to answer the right answers somethe test question, but I just I
didn't. It did not resonate withme, and I did not believe it.
And right around seventeen, that's whenI got the courage enough to tell
my parents, I don't want togo to church anymore. I don't buy
any of this stuff. So Itook off and I stayed gone until I
was about thirty years old. Ohwow, Yeah, and at the time,

(04:49):
you know, I was living inLas Vegas. So I'm seventeen years
old, living in Las Vegas,going to college and doing everything I was
told I should not do. Andso, you know, I ended up
exploring a lot of a lot ofsituations and things that if you can imagine,
were not good for me, thatwere unbiblical and that we're downright wicked.

(05:12):
One specific example is I got intothe occult, and so I started
dabbling and with Wiji boards at first, and then summoning spirits and manifesting them
in my house, and and thenit came down to teaching myself how to
read tarot cards, and it gotreally weird, and to me, I
thought it was all a joke,but clearly I realized now it was not.

(05:35):
But then I got saved at thirty. I basically it's a very long
story, but there was a tragedyin my life. My father was in
an accident. We thought he wasgoing to die, and I realized in
that moment, so we inline.Craig talks about this quite a bit,

(05:56):
about this existential dread. You knowthat that some times people feel, and
I felt that I felt the weightof my own mortality. I realized that
my father, who I thought wasgoing to live forever, you know,
he was actually going to die.And it was in that moment, very
selfishly, I realized, you knowwhat, I'm going to die. And
I just had this moment like,oh my gosh, what am I here

(06:17):
for? What am I living for? And so for the very first time,
I prayed and I felt the Lordin that moment, and then I
realized, uh, oh, thisis something's going on here. And so
I started exploring that, going tochurch, reading the Bible, and I
got sick. Excellent praise the Lord. I know you have a ministry called

(06:39):
Whise Disciple. Can you tell usabout how you started your ministry? Can
you tell us about some of thegoals, some of the things that listeners
would find if they went there.Sure, yeah, why is disciple?
So it started? So, Imean again, I got saved, and
one of the first things I immediatelywanted to do was I just wanted to
know the Lord. I felt likeI was in medial training. You know,

(07:00):
I got saved when I was thirty. That was fifteen years ago,
and so I was like, oh, I'm at a disadvantage. I should
have been learning more when I wasyounger, and so I jumped into school
and I started getting excited about thethings that I was learning in school,
getting my theology degree, and andso I started a blog after I graduated
and just just posting stuff, andthe blog started to take off, and

(07:26):
long story short, it became aYouTube channel. We really I started the
YouTube channel very late in the game, like just about three and a half
years ago. So right in COVID, we were all thinking outside the box,
you know. At the time,I was a pastor, you know,
and we're all preaching to the camera, and it's very strange instead of
the congregation. And so I waslike, well, okay, let's start

(07:50):
making some videos and see what happenswith that. So whyse disciple really at
base comes out of Matthew ten sixteen. There's this interesting one off that Jesus
else's disciples before he sends them outto spread the gospel, and he says,
behold, I'm sending you out assheep in the midst of wolves,
So be wise as serpents and innocentas doves. I figured, man,
that's great. We still need thattoday, maybe today now more than ever.

(08:16):
And so that explains the title ofthe ministry. It explains that weird
symbol that's behind me. And thegoal is, and I try to communicate
this every video I make is I'mjust trying to help you become the effective
Christian that you were meant to be. Jesus has an expectation, I think,
for his disciples, and we haveto We have to know how to

(08:37):
navigate our faith well in today's culture. And one of the ways I do
that, specifically in the videos isread the I read the Bible as much
as possible to show people that theBible connects to everything that's going on around
us. Man. Now, thething that I kind of stumbled upon and

(08:58):
the reason I wanted to have youon to was your debate teacher reacts videos.
And it was so funny. Idon't even know how I found one.
It just showed up on my feed. I watched the first one,
and I mean to tell you,I binge watch those things. I absolutely
loved them, and listeners of thepodcast know that I absolutely love debates.

(09:22):
They're like my you know, somepeople get excited about sporting events. That's
how I get about good debates,and we may have that in common.
But before I know that obviously.In the name it says Debate Teacher Reacts.
So can you tell us a littlebit about your background and being a
debate teacher. Sure. Yeah.It's funny because when I started Debate Teacher

(09:46):
Reacts, there were no viewers onthe channel, as in the very beginning
of the YouTube experience, and Irealized I needed a gimmick to get people
aware of what I'm trying to do. My focus is on evangelism and discipleship,
so I just wanted people to justcome to the channel and then eventually
hear me talk about that. Butapparently Debate Teacher Reacts like just blew up.

(10:09):
And so it's funny that one dayI'm sitting there and like I said,
it's COVID, and I'm like,okay, I'm on YouTube, but
nobody's watching. So how do Iget people to watch? I said,
you know, I used to bea high school teacher before I was a
pastor, and back in the day, I was a debate teacher and I
did that for a number of years. I was in Las Vegas, so
there was Clark County, and Ithought, well, as I survey the

(10:33):
landscape of YouTube, I'm watching acontingent of atheists, in my opinion at
the time, dominate the landscape.And I'm talking about people like Matt Dilla
Hunty maybe are and raw, althoughmaybe not so much now, but like
some of these guys who, especiallywith Dylla Hunty, with the atheist experience,
they were just batting Christians around likelittle bunny rabbits and their big bear

(10:56):
paws. And so I thought,well, okay, let's do this.
I'll utilize my background as a debateteacher, and we'll look at theology and
apologetics debates, but I'll talk aboutit like more inside baseball stuff and call
balls and strikes and see who actuallywon. Yes, And that's where that
came from. Yeah, oh man, they are absolutely great. I love

(11:18):
them. I think you do agreat job with them. Now, a
few questions about that, and thenwe'll get into debate more specific because I
think one of the great things aboutlistening to your videos is not only do
you get that play by play andcalling strikes and balls, but you also
get into the methods of persuasion andthings like that, which I found to
be extremely helpful. It helped mekind of put pieces together in the sense

(11:41):
of why do I find that guyso persuasive? And then after listening to
you, I'm like, Okay,now I get it. But what I
always wonder is there's so many debatesout there. I can watch a debate
a day, probably for the restof my life and not watch them all.
How do you choose the debates thatyou feature on your channel? Oh,

(12:03):
that's a good question. So inthe beginning, I really let the
viewers decide for me. I wouldin the community tab, I would put
up a few options, maybe threeoptions, and I would just let people
choose by vote. Nowadays, I'vesort of moved away from debate teacher reacts
and shifted to other types of serieson the channel, and so I think

(12:26):
lately it's still just the people whorequest debates the most. So like,
for example, I just did JamesWhite versus Lad Flowers in John six forty
four. That was because that washighly requested, and so that usually tends
to guide me. Is what peopletell me they want to see. Oh,
well that makes sense. Yeah,And I know that that just had

(12:46):
the whole blogger sphere going crazy asfar as that debate go, So that
would make sense. I mean,to be honest with you. Literally,
while I'm watching the debate, I'mthinking to myself, I can't wait to
hear Nate's take on this, whichis probably exactly what you want, right,
Man, I'm not used to sothe channel's kind of taken off,

(13:07):
and I think I don't see myselfor the ministry I guess as being as
influential as it is now. Andso Laden Flowers came out and reacted to
my reaction. Actually, James Whitetook ause. She was something I said
as well on Twitter, and Iwas like, oh, I guess I
can't get away with just making thesevideos anymore. People are watching. So

(13:30):
yeah, well that kind of leadsto my next question. So in knowing
that you know, if you're makingone of these and let's say let's use
the example just because it's the mostrecent one of doctor White and doctor Flowers,
and you kind of know they're goingto see it more than likely,
I think. I mean, likeI said, I've watched all of them,
and I think you do a reallygood job at being objective. I

(13:52):
mean, honestly, there are sometimeswhere I'm watching and I'm thinking, man,
I wish he'd chose cards a littlemore. I can't even tell you
know where he stands here, butI love that you don't ultimately, you
know. So how do you remainobjective when you're watching these when I'm sure
with some of them, you know, there's a position that you more align

(14:13):
yourself with than the other, notmaybe particularly that one. So how do
you remain so objective when you're doingthat? That's a good question. I
if I can get maybe a littlepastoral, maybe absolutely, you know,
I I at base. I prayfirst, so before going into something like
this, I pray. But honestly, I try to keep at base my

(14:37):
my my my central focus on thefact that I love my brothers and as
difficult as some of these guys canbe. So I'm not just talking about
James White Lean Flowers, but like, oh sure, well, I love
these brothers and so I don't Idon't know. I want to see them
succeed, you know. So that'sso that's where I'm able to a little

(15:01):
bit remain objective. The other thingis I keep a criteria in my head
while I'm watching and just seeing howboth opponents sort of engage the criteria that
I have in my mind when Iadjudicate, and I try to keep it
about the criteria, and that alsohelps me quite a bit. Can you
talk a little bit about that criteria, because I'm just thinking that perhaps that

(15:26):
would help other people when they're watchinga debate as well, remain objective and
not kind of just side with theirguy, you know, because it's easy
sometimes to do that. Sure.I mean, you're you're touching on sort
of you know, philosophy of debatestrategy and philosophy of debate judging as well.
You know, so when you getinto the literature on the academic side

(15:46):
of things, there's back and forthon what's the right way to judge debate,
you know. But and I'm noteven well versed on all of the
various philosophies. But the biggest thingfor me is the interplay of argumentation.
What I'm what I'm looking for,or the way that I say it in
videos, is I'm really looking forclash. And so, you know,
when the affirmative gets up to takethe affirmative position on a particular debate and

(16:10):
they argue and further their case,the negative needs to get up and clash
with the affirmative. And what thatdoes then is it creates in my mind,
almost like this picture of two rams, like just charging at each other
and then butting heads, you know, But the rams are ideas, and
so that's the biggest thing is whois furthering their position better than the other

(16:34):
guy. That's one of the criteriathat I have. This is typically how
it goes. Sometimes it changes,so for John six forty four it changed
a little bit, and maybe Ican if you want to, I can
explain that. But generally speaking,who is engaging the topic better than the
other who is furthering their position andgiving better arguments, I guess is another
way to say that than the otherguy, and who is laying a better

(16:56):
framework than the other opponent? Theframe. What I mean by framework is
there's this weird thing that happens indebate, and so you can split debates
basically into two types of content.There's actually the things that are being said,
so there's the arguments themselves. Thenthere's also the way to present those
arguments, and that's an art form. That's what makes debate so interesting,

(17:18):
and it sort of falls into thecategory of rhetoric, you know, and
so on that front, on therhetoric side of things, laying a framework
exists and basically what it is isthe way that you narrate the debate and
how it should be understood to thejudge. In this case, it's the
audience in the room. And sovery often this is so persuasive that as

(17:42):
a matter of fact, somebody couldhave better arguments, but if the other
person lays a better framework, theyusually win in the side of the judge.
That's how important laying a framework is. And it's just understood in debate
circles if that's the case, Andso I look for that as well.
I wouldn't say that tips the scalesnecessarily, but it's certainly a component that
I look for. Oh wow,that's helpful. Now. One of the

(18:04):
videos you did, which when Isaw that you were doing this debate,
I thought, man, this guy'sbrave. Was the debate between you'll,
I bet you as soon as Isay this debate, you're going to think,
oh, I know what he meansnow the Dave Farina James Tore debate.
Oh man, oh yeah. Butthe reason I bring that up is

(18:26):
not to go into the weeds onthe craziness that it was, but that
I thought you did you use thatdebate in such a great way to illustrate
the logos, ethos, and pathosof a debate, which are forms of
persuasion. And I was wondering ifyou could just like unpack each of those
in the importance of how they contributeto a being an effective debater. Yeah,

(18:51):
that's another great question, man.I. So when you train to
get up on the debate stage again, you really are taught to think of
it in in sort of two categories. Clearly, you need to have the
ability to argue, well, youneed to have some kind of a logic
ability or background. But then youalso need to know how to develop those

(19:12):
categories of rhetoric. And so Ididn't, by the way, invent that
at all. I mean that goesall the way back to the Greeks.
But ethos, pathos and lovos,so ethos essentially refers to your credibility.
There is some work that must bedone as a debater on the debate stage
to develop your credibility. One ofthose so there's many ways. One of

(19:33):
those ways is to just simply supportyourself with good evidence. That right there,
especially if you can recall them,especially in cross examination when pressed shows
the judge that you're well thought outin this area and that you actually are
somebody who you can support yourself withgood reasons, good evidence. Pathos is

(19:55):
just a way of the way thatI describe it as developing an emotional connection
with the judge. There's better waysprobably to explain that, but clearly your
tone, the way that you comeacross, if you speak in certain ways.
One of the ways to develop pathos, and we talk about this we
trained students is look at the judge. Don't look at your opponent, look

(20:18):
at the judge. Why because ifyou have eye contact, you maintain eye
contact with the judge, you'll connectbetter with them, and perhaps that will
also help you in the long runwith whatever it is that you're saying.
And so those are kind of theway ethos and pathos are largely the non
logical ways, the ways that stepoutside of your argumentation proper to help you

(20:41):
win. And then of course logosis the category that where the arguments live.
You have to whatever you're saying hasto be logical, it has to
make sense, and again it hasto be supported by good evidence, good
sound reasoning. For the argumentation sideof things and debate, most of us
use something called the Tollman model ofargumentation. And so that's claim, data

(21:03):
and warrant. If you're doing that, well, you're developing your logo as
well. And someone who comes tomind who would be really good at the
logo's part would be someone like aWilliam Lane Craig. Oh, my goodness
to it's almost like he's and Isay this with much respect, and I
hope this doesn't sound disrespectful. It'salmost robotic the way that he just does
everything in the most precise way heis. That's probably why he is one

(21:30):
of the best. Yeah. Soone of the things I'm thinking about is,
I don't know if you're familiar withthe philosopher John Mark Reynolds, but
he wrote a book years ago withthe late Philip Johnson on the New Atheism,
and I just want to get yourtake on this. And this is
from memory, so it's not superprecise, but it was right after that
famous Hitchins Craig debate, which waskind of the heavyweight battle at the time,

(21:53):
and he was saying, how whenit comes to the what you you
know, the logo aspect of thedebate. I mean, Craig just decimated
Hitchens, right, but that manypeople walked away from the debate thinking it
was a lot closer than it actuallywas because of Hitchens rhetoric. Right,

(22:15):
he is just a great storyteller,very good at being connecting with the emotions
of his listeners, and so,right, how how does one balance all
that when they're debating. Yeah,it's that's a that's a great question,
and I almost want to like thething that came to mind when you asked
was just practice. But you're rightthere, there is a way to formulate

(22:40):
your so so when you start out, So this belongs this really this question
belongs in the area of prep.You know, like before you get up
on the debate stage, when you'reprepping and you're gathering together what are called
your briefs and all the things thatyou need to get up on the debate
stage, you also need to thinkabout how you're going to present yourself in
rhetorically beneficial ways. And so usuallythis is all over the map because everybody

(23:04):
has a different style. I thinkI interviewed Wayne Lane Craig and asked him
about what he does in his prep, and I can guarantee that's probably different
than somebody else, like James Wider, Michael Jones of Inspiring philosophy, or
whoever you know you think of asexemplars in this area. But one of
the ways that you can do itis you simply start off with For some
reason, I think this is WayneLane Craig's approach. I could be wrong,

(23:26):
so don't help me do. Butlike you, start off with the
actual arguments themselves, so these wouldbe called the contentions, and then the
arguments that are connected to those contentions. You could start off generally there in
your prep and then work your waybackwards towards developing rhetoric after you make sure
that your arguments are there. Thereason why I say that is because if

(23:48):
sometimes people start with the rhetoric andforget about the contentions of the arguments,
you know, so maybe that's justa way of ensuring that there is that
proper balance. And this is certainlyways that I've suggested to my students as
well, to make sure the argumentsare there first, then start thinking about
stylistic choices later. I like that, yeah, because obviously the point there

(24:11):
that that Reynolds was making is thatwhen he started discussing the debate with other
people, he realized that while Craigobviously from the logical perspective, just decimated
Hitchins. Hitchens was very winsome,and the rhetoric piece, as it always
was with Hitchins, was strong.But then Craig kind of majored on the
logic and it was almost like betweenthe two of them there could have been

(24:34):
more of a perfect balance if yougelled them together, you know, true,
you know, and and anything helps, you know. I mean again,
I think you're right. The reasonwhy a lot of people thought,
even Christians, you know, it'samazing because there were Christians who debated Hitchins
loved him. You know. Ithought he was just a wonderful guy.

(24:57):
You know, could hang out,eat food, to go grab drinks or
whatever after the debates and things,and it all sort of comes back to
these ideas of developing an emotional connectionwith people. Christopher Hitchins was just really
great at even to tell jokes.Christopher Hitchins could tell a joke. He
was very dry, you know,which is my favorite style of humor.

(25:18):
And when as soon as people laugh, you can hear it in the audience.
You know, he's he probably knewthat He's done a little bit of
work on the air in the areaof pay those. So yeah, it's
it's all helpful and Winglane Craig,I guess we could say that maybe he
could develop that a little bit alittle bit better. Yeah, And uh,
I wanted to say too. Haveyou ever seen that film with Douglas

(25:41):
Wilson and Hitchens called Collision? Uhno, Yeah, it's it's basically it's
a documentary of kind of the tourthey did, of the different bars and
different venues of debates that they didwhen they came out with a book together,
and that that video really expresses whatyou're saying, well, is you
know, Hitchens is saying some ofsome things that I just adamantly disagree with.

(26:03):
But at the same time, whenI got done with the movie,
I'm like, man, I reallylike that guy. Yeah, so that's
great. So you talked about debatepreparation a little bit, and I did
want to talk about there are youmentioned some there that there are various ways
to prepare for a debate. Nowone of the things that I think is
really interesting and I wanted to getyour take on this that I've heard Matt

(26:26):
Dillahunty say, and I know I'veheard you say that you're probably not going
to review any more of his debates, and if you want to share why,
that would be super interesting, butI don't want to put you on
the spot. But he says thathe never prepares for an opponent. He
prepares for the topic. So,for example, if he's preparing to debate

(26:48):
the existence of God with Nate Salah, he's not going to go back and
look at your books and look atyour videos, and you know, I'm
imagining you have all these things availableand that he can go back and look
at them. He's just going toprepare for that topic. So that leads
me to the question of should youfocus more on preparing for the topic the
opponent both what's your take there?So I'm trying to think why he would

(27:15):
say that. I mean the waythat so let me back up. My
background is informal debates. I wasa high school debate teacher, and so
where I'm coming from is more intercollegiate, you know, academic stuff, going
to tournaments and things, and soI've always felt this tension of trying to
squash down the formal rules of debateonto the things that you and I are

(27:40):
talking about now, which are thetheology and apologetics debates that take place in
venues all over the country, becausethere you can't do that, you know,
as a matter of fact. Oneof the issues, so I'm going
to try to answer your question,so if I don't get back around to
it, help me. But oneof the issues that I've had for a
while is the way that debates aretitled. I think they're unhelpful because most

(28:03):
of the time I've seen them titledin the form of a question. I
come from, again, a moreacademic background, where debates are not titled
as questions, because that's confusing.When you do that, you don't even
know who shoulders the burden a proofanymore, because whoever takes the affirmative on

(28:25):
a resolution that's written in the formof a declarative statement automatically shoulders the burden.
But once you step outside that andyou just start asking these questions,
it just becomes a little bit moredifficult on figuring out the roles of opponents
in debate. And so that's justone example I think of. You know,
what I'm trying to say is likeyou can't just bring that over and

(28:45):
squash that down on top of whathappens on the debate stage, but in
formal circles you would not know whoyour opponent is. You would ultimately take
both sides and develop cases, especiallyin lead up to turn ornaments, you
would develop both sides of a particularresolution, and then you would be ready
by coin toss to argue both sides. So maybe that's what Dilla Hunty is

(29:11):
talking about. I don't know.But when you're on the more like what
we're talking about here. You knowChristian apologetics debates, these guys are published.
You know William Lane Craig is published. He has a lot of these
guys have scholarship behind them. Youshould in those cases, you should absolutely
research your opponent because now you'll knowwhat their arguments are going to be before

(29:34):
you get up on the debate stage, and you can do some work to
what's called preempt your opponent's arguments.And if you do that in your opening
statement and you get out ahead oftheir arguments, then in the audience signs
with your sort of framing of thatof that argument, they're going to be
with you. It doesn't matter.Then your opponent gets up and tries to

(29:56):
make the same argument, but theaudience already sided with you. You preempted
their arguments, so yeah, it'svery beneficial. Yeah, and it also
avoids kind of that I mentioned toyou. And before we actually started recording
the Bonson Stein debate, you knowthat very famous debate. Do you remember
the point where Stein gets up andmakes all these arguments against like the cosmological

(30:17):
argument, the teleological argument. Bonsonbasically gets up and says, yeah,
I didn't use any of those.I mean that was like, what,
so thanks, Okay, I'm apresuppositionalist. Hello. I mean, Monson
set up much more thoughtfully and winsomelythan that, but that was pretty much
the idea behind it. Well,that's a perfect example of what happens when

(30:37):
you do not research your opponent.So that's very good. Yeah. Now
you have said that you have donesome debate teacher reacts videos on Matt dillahunty,
and you've talked a bit about whyyou probably aren't going to do any
more videos on him, and sincehe's so prominent, I did think listeners
would find it interesting just to hearyour thoughts on why you might not think

(31:02):
so. I think that's the bestuse of your time, is that okay?
To ask or do you know ofcourse, Okay, okay, I
don't want to. I don't wantto like put you on the spot.
So if you're like Chad, Ireally don't want to go there. I
totally can't. No, not atall, not at all. I just
I hesitated and chuckled because you know, you asked me a little a little
bit ago about how I can remainobjective, and one of the things I

(31:25):
said was, well, I loveI love my brothers. You know,
it's interesting about Matt Dilla Hunty.He looks almost exactly like an uncle that
I had back in the day,my uncle. My uncle passed away unfortunately
in a in a motorcycle accident.But but so when I when I see
Matt Dilla Hunty, even today,I just have this affinity for him because
he looks like family to me.You know, that's nice. But having

(31:48):
said that, the reason why Ijust I don't have any desire to do
any more Matt diala hunting debates becausehe does the same thing every time,
which which essentially is to not makethe arguments that are necessary for him to
further his position in any debate thathe that he participates in the way that
I've characterized it is, and youknow, I've seen I don't know three

(32:12):
or four now or maybe five debatesof his, But he does the same
thing every time. What he doesis when it's advantageous to him, he'll
make an argument. When it's advantageousfor him, and he gets pressed by
his opponent, he'll stop making argumentsand he'll become a judge. He'll become
part of the audience and so andfamously he'll say the line, well,

(32:32):
I'm not convinced, and that's whatthat's what I mean. He becomes the
judge all of a sudden of thedebate that he's supposed to be actually participating
in, and that is that isinappropriate, and it's a cop out.
And I just think it's a wasteof time to do any more of videos
like right Right and even and Listeners, just to let you know, if
you go back and watch those,Nate does a great job of remaining objective,

(32:58):
but at the same time he willpoint that out. And so if
you're wondering more about what he's talkingabout, I encourage you to go back
and look at those videos. Justdo what I do. What I did
when I found Nate's videos. Justsearch debate, teacher reacts, and you
get a whole wonderful list, andthen you'll binge watch them like I did.
One of the things you do inthose videos that I really like is

(33:19):
you focus on the cross examination.So, in other words, if listeners
are thinking, oh my gosh,I can't listen to this guy break down
a two and a half hour,three hour debate, you focus on the
cross Why is that, Well,you already said it. If I were
to analyze a regular debate like theones that we're talking about, it would

(33:40):
be like a six hour video.I just I personally don't have the time.
I got two young sons which Iwould watch though, Oh my goodness,
but yeah, so I just Ican't make those kinds of long videos.
And also I always had the view, and I think I'm not the

(34:02):
only one. I was talking toJames White about this, and he agrees
that cross examination is where it's at. Like, you can do all kinds
of work in your prep to developyour case in openers and bottles and all
that stuff, but when cross examinationtakes place, that is like that's when
the magic happened. That's like whenyou get to shine like you get to

(34:28):
showcase your abilities of sort of criticalthought but also a quick footedness or not,
and you kind of fall in yourface and it all happens in real
time. It's an amazing experience.Crosses always, to me been the most
exciting part of debate. Yeah,and you've really helped me in listening to
cross examinations now because you explain thatconcept that again, I think I've always

(34:52):
kind of picked up on but didn'tknow how to quite put words to it.
As you'll say, do you seewhat so and so is doing here?
I think he's laying a garden path. Can can you talk a little
bit about what that means? Yeah, so laying a garden So there's there's
If you talk to other coaches andteachers and probably judges, they probably call
it something else. It's just whatwe called it, you know where I

(35:14):
come from. But laying a gardenpath is basically developing a line of questions
that start off seemingly innocent, youknow, but then they kind of end
with a humdinger, like like thelast question is designed to be a knockout
punch in the boxing ring figuratively speaking. And so when you lay the garden

(35:34):
path, you know. I mean, if you've seen enough of these,
you start to recognize them that,yeah, they they're they're heading, they're
heading towards knockout. And so I'llprobably call it out like, hey,
this is this is something's about tohappen here, you know, because the
other thing is in cross including allsegments of debate. Actually the art of
debate and being good at it isappreciating the economy of words, and so

(35:59):
you know, you know that nottoo many words can be wasted. Everything
has a purpose and is leading tosomething, and that's usually how I can
identify those things. That's good.And we've talked a lot about your debate
Teacher Reacts videos, but what othervideos are you putting out? Yeah?
So I have another series called PastorReacts and I just kind of born out

(36:22):
of, I think a felt need. So as the channel started to grow,
especially in the last six months,it's really started to grow. Praise
the Lord. I've gotten to knowmy audience a little bit better, and
I've realized that there, boy,I say this with much love, I
see my audience the way that Jesussaw the crowds in Matthew wandering like sheep

(36:46):
without a shepherd, you know.It says Jesus looked at them with compassion.
And the emails that come in themessaging and things, it has some
recurring themes of I'm coming back tothe Lord after a long period of time
of being away. I need tostart reading the Bible. I don't know
where to go to church. I'vebeen hurt before by Christians. I don't

(37:08):
know what to do, and soI created pastor reacts to really help people
understand the Bible better and maybe evenunderstand what they should be looking for when
a pastor preaches a pulpit. Soone of the things I do is I'll
look at sermons and break them downkind of in the same way that I
do with debates. Is as apastor and a preacher. I'll talk about

(37:30):
what the elements are of a goodsermon, and I'll identify them in the
sermons. I'll kind of watch thosethings too. So that's other stuff that's
on the channel. Oh man,that's another series I'm gonna have start watching
now. Oh well, well,a few more questions about debate and then
we'll start winding things down. Andthese are just kind of fun ones.

(37:52):
So first of all, do youhave a favorite debate or like we did
a podcast once called our Favorite TOAsand we talked about kind of our favorite
debates. Are there any debates thatNate Salo will go back and watch again
every once in a while, oryou really think or exemplaries maybe or something
like that. Boy, that's agood question. So what I generally want

(38:16):
to see is, like I said, those two ideas running headlong into each
other in a very rigorous academic way. So for some reason, the William
Lane Craig versus Shelley Kagan debate,Oh yeah, yeah, I think Shelley
Kagan really handled himself well. AndI understand there's some controversy around that too

(38:38):
after the fact, but I appreciatedthat for what it was in the moment.
I tend to lean towards debates whereit's not brother versus brother. I
don't actually like that. There's somethingabout it gives me indigestion. I much
prefer to see my brothers go upagainst those who are non believers and do

(39:00):
debates that way. So yeah,we mind Craig and Shelley Kagan. I
also really appreciate good debaters, soI like watching Michael Jones. I think
he's incredibly smart and he's using thegifts that God has given him. He
did a debate against arn Raw thatwell, there really wasn't a whole lot

(39:21):
of engagement coming from Raw's side,but I just I just appreciated watching him.
Yeah, if I could jump inreal quick. We had Michael on
the podcast to talk and it wasreally interesting. We had him on talking
about Divine Hidden this and I referencedthat I think it was before or after
the podcast. I was talking tohim about that debate, and I was

(39:44):
really surprised with how much he manhandle arn Raw. I'm just being honest.
I thought that he I've never youknow how a lot of times,
and maybe this is something you canspeak to because you're more of an expert
on this than I am, ofcourse, but you know, there's a
difference between a rebuttal and a refutation, And a lot of times in debates

(40:06):
you get rebuttals, but you don'talways get a refutation. I mean,
would you agree with that? Yeah, sure, yeah, I don't think
I've ever seen a stronger refutation.And any debate I've ever watched is when
he just annihilated Arn BRA's view ofwhat faith was. Do you remember that?
Ye Oh, my gosh, I'vewatched that like three times because I'm

(40:30):
just like, that is wow.But also it was really odd to me.
Sorry, I'm going on a bitof a tangent. It was really
odd to me that Raw is kindof the guy that comes and says,
hey, man, I'm all aboutthe science. It's got to be empirical.
But if you watch the debate,there's only one of them that's using
the science, and it's not ArnRaw. He's using experience or perceptions.

(40:54):
Did you find that kind of odd? Yeah, well, not surprising,
but I found it on Like Isaid, you know, because we talked
about why I started doing debate teacherreacts in the first place, and I
said that it seemed like a coupleof these guys with big names were dominating
the scene. But I knew immediatelythat they did not have the science and

(41:17):
the argumentation behind them to support them. So I knew going into to watching
like you know, Dill, Huntyand r and Raw, that they're not
They're not doing the work necessary thata debate opponent should in order to get
up on the debate stage, whichis why It's funny because I get accused
of bias from everybody. You know, when your guy, well, your

(41:40):
guy doesn't win, you know,then I'm biased, right, But sometimes
Christians lose, So in the debateseries, if you go down deep enough,
you'll see that they do. Butmost of the time they win.
And somebody asked me, well,why you know most of the time that
Christians win, And I'm like,it's because they work harder at it,
like they do more homework. Youknow. These atheists just don't I don't

(42:02):
know what is going on. Theyhear that there's going to be a debate
six weeks down the line, andthey don't do anything about it. That's
amazing. Yeah, I've heard I'veheard doctor Craig say something like that.
At some point. He says thatone of the things that surprised him when
he started doing his debates years agowas how many of his opponents would just
show up to the debate completely unfamiliarwith the arguments and the content of the

(42:25):
debate, and they would kind ofpresent a kind of a philosophy one oh
one kind of case against God andweren't even aware of the more contemporary arguments.
And so, yeah, that's reallythat's really fascinating. So you mentioned
Michael Jones. Are there any otherdebaters that you particularly enjoy watching if you
see they have a debate and you'relike, oh, got to watch that?

(42:47):
Is there anybody like that? Thereare people I appreciate for their intellect
and the way they handle themselves onthe debate stage. So certainly Waynlin Craig,
Michael Jones, James White is anotherone. Trent Horne. I,
oh, yeah, I dig mesome Trent Horn. Although he I think

(43:07):
he fares better against non believers thanhe does with believers. I'll just leave
it at that, but you know, I'm really appreciative of him, and
and just very like I said,I respect. I try to respect everybody
who I react to and just seethe potential in them and hope that they

(43:29):
you know, that they do wellon the debate stage, even if they're
non believers. And definitely Trent Horn, I mean, obviously he's so he's
Catholic and I'm not. So youknow, we're going to disagree, but
I do appreciate his abilities as well. Do you have somebody that you that
you really like? No, Imean the names that you mentioned would be
the names that I would probably sayas well, to be honest, Yeah,

(43:52):
I would say Michael Jones WLC.I particularly like James White when he
debates the deity of Christ than TrentHorn, I haven't. I think the
only debate I've watched of Trent's thatwas against a fellow believer was his recent
one with James White on purgatory.I think the rest have been against unbelievers.
So I really can't speak to howstrong he is when it comes to

(44:16):
debating believers, right, But Susais also somebody that comes to mind.
Yeah, he is a good debater, that's true. I forgot about him
because he hasn't been necessarily. Hewas kind of when the New Atheists were
going on and he was out therea lot. Yeah. Yeah. He
debated Hitchens and I thought that wentreally well. Yeah yeah, So can

(44:37):
I make a debate teacher reacts request? Sure? All right? Now,
I want to say to everybody whohears this, I'm not at all,
you know, demanding that Nate dothis, and if he doesn't, that's
fine. I would One of myfavorite debates is Chris Date versus Dale Tuggy

(44:58):
on the of Christ. Okay,I think it's called is Jesus human and
divine? Or is Jesus human orjust or something like that. It's one
of my favorites. And I wouldalso love to hear how you would interact
with Tuggy. But yeah, Ithink that one would be really I think
you'd enjoy that one. Noted,I'll write that down, and you know,

(45:22):
selfishly, I just want to seeit, you know, I'm just
I'm not gonna lie. Okay,So before we finish up, where can
listeners who want to learn more aboutyou? They want to learn more about
your channel, they want to startdigesting these materials that you're putting out.
Where can they find you? Yeah, so the YouTube channel is probably the
quickest, fastest way to get allthat content there. So it's YouTube dot

(45:44):
com, forward, slash wise disciple. I do have a Patreon and there
are things on there because I knowPatreon is known for it sort of you
jump on too financial support, youknow, for to financially support people.
But I actually do a Bible stufowith about three thousand people on there totally
for free, and Monday through Friday, every morning, I go through We're

(46:06):
Going Tough, the Gospel of Matthewand so I encourage your listeners if they
want to do something like that,to just go over to Patreon dot com,
Forward slash wise Disciple and that's totallyfree. Excellent. I hope it's
a blessing. Yeah, thanks formaking us aware of that. Well,
Nate, I can't thank you enoughfor coming on. I can't thank you
enough for your materials. I've gainedso much from them, and honestly,

(46:29):
man, it was just a thrillto talk to you. Thanks so much
for taking the time. Well,shoot, I'm glad to do this.
And you know, a long timeago, so when I first got saved
Apologetics three point fifteen, you know, was just one of those things that
I started listening to Brian Auten,you know, interviewing people that I looked
up to, and man, it'sjust an honor to be here. I'm

(46:51):
grateful that you invited me. Thankyou, excellent, Thank you, thanks
for listening to the podcast. Ifyou have a question you'd like us to
address, or just a message forus feedback, good or bad, you
can either email us at podcast atapologetics three fifteen dot com, or leave
a voice message for us using speakpipe. Just go to speakpipe dot com

(47:12):
slash Apologetics three fifteen to leave usa message, and remember, if you
include a ghostbuster's quote in your question, we guarantee that we'll read it on
the podcast. We also ensure upto fifty percent better quality answers. Also,
if you've enjoyed today's podcast, pleaseleave a review in iTunes or the
podcast platform in your choice, andplease share this episode with a friend if
you found it useful. Remember youcan find lots of Apologetics resources at apologeticspree

(47:37):
fifteen dot com, along with shownotes for today's episode. Find Chad's apologetic
stuff over at truthbomb apologetics. That'struthbomb dot blogspot dot com. This has
been Brian Auten and Chad Gross forthe Apologetics three fifteen podcast, and thanks
for listening.