Yesterday on Way of the Master Radio, Scott Klusendorf of Life Training Institute gave solid, practical advice how to handle faulty debate tactics.

An ad hominem argument (attacking the person, not the argument):

This kind of ad hominem or personal attack does nothing to refute the case... I would play along and say, "Okay, you're right. I'm an evil, selfish guy... Tell me how that, in any way, refutes the evidence I've just presented."

Christianity is just a crutch for simple, weak-minded people:

"Well, maybe I am weak, maybe I'm not. But, how does that in any way call into question the evidence for the resurrection for Jesus Christ."

Well, you just grew up in a nation where most people are Christian. You grew up in a Christian home, that's why you are a Christian.

And, maybe that person just grew up in a neighborhood where there were only skeptics and atheists. That's why they are an atheist. Come on, we can do better than that. Let's look at the evidence. Is there better evidence for atheism being true, or better evidence for Christianity being true? Is there better evidence for Islam being true, or better evidence for Christianity being true? Let's not play this game that's just because you were raised in that environment, therefore your position can be counted as something we shouldn't buy into.

What about when you ask a question, and the person switches the topic.

I think you need to stop... Stop and say, "Wait a minute. I just asked you a question. I think it's important. Could you show me the respect and give me an answer."

Don't let yourself be distracted.

Profanity.

When people are losing an argument, they often resort to dramatics. The old saying in law school that when you have the facts pound the facts and when you don't have the facts pound the table and do it loudly is what's going on.

The unbeliever "scores" on you.

It's important to be gracious and winsome. If somebody makes a point that is a good point, acknowledge it. And, secondly, if you don't have the answer, there's nothing wrong with saying, "You know what, intellectual credibility requires me to say I'm not ready to respond to that at this point, give me a day or two." Just because somebody comes up with an objection you haven't thought of doesn't mean the objection is valid. It just means it's one you haven't thought through yet. That's all.

Tough questions ("What about all the pygmies in Bora Bora?")

Sometimes, I think, asking a question to clarify can help. Greg Koukl has a great way to respond to that type of question. He simply asks the person, "Do you think people who commit moral crimes deserve to be punished?" "Well, yes." "Do you think all humans, including pygmies have committed moral crimes?" "Well, yes." "So, if God punishes all humans, He is not being unjust, is He?" Now, see, right away that diffuses a lot of that. But notice that we started things with a question. We didn't just get defensive. We simply asked a question. It's part of what Koukl calls his "Colombo Tactic," which is just a brilliant way of dealing with these kind of objections.
If God threw every one of us into hell, and saved no one, He would not be unjust. The fact that He saves some by His grace is a testament to His goodness, not a testament to His "badness."

The Bible's been changed. It's full of old fables.

Oh? In what way? "Oh, I don't know. And, I'm not smart enough. I don't have a theology degree the way you do." It's like, wait a minute, you didn't think it was a problem for you to make the assertion. You were smart enough to make the assertion, but when you're asked to defend it, you pump the ball and say, "Oh, I'm not smart like you."

An assertion is a statement that doesn't have anything under it to ground it. An argument, though, has reasons given in support of a conclusion. So, it is possible for unbelievers to make arguments against God's existence. They do. And some of those arguments are at least valid in structure, meaning there is proper reasoning in the structure of the argument, though we can question some of the content. For example, someone says, "Well, I don't think God exists, because there is evil in the world." Now, that's a problematic argument. It doesn't work. But, at least the person's offering a reason for what their conclusion is. They're not simply offering an assertion like, "Oh, the Bible's been changed a bunch of times."

By the way, the argument that God doesn't exist because evil exists is self-defeating. For God to be accused of tolerating evil, we have to assume evil is a real thing. Well, if evil is a real thing, objective moral good is also real, but there cannot be objective moral good without an objecive moral Law-giver, ergo we've just assumed some kind of theism.

The c-word. (Bull manure)

Before you say somebody is just giving us a bunch of bull, you need to give specifics. Don't let the statement go unchallenged.

"I respect your opinion. You respect mine."