Formal Debate

What you'll learn

Describe the standard structure of an apologetics debate and the purpose of each segment
Prepare a debate case and flow an opponent's arguments
Practise cross-examination using short, closed questions

Why debate?

A formal debate is a structured, moderated exchange between two or more speakers on a stated resolution, such as 'Does God exist?' or 'Is the New Testament reliable?' Debates have been part of Christian witness since Paul reasoned in the synagogue at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2-3) and in the hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9).

Debates do not usually convert the opponent on the stage. Their main audience is the people in the room and watching online, many of whom have never heard the Christian case presented clearly next to its alternative. A good debate shows that Christianity can stand up to its strongest critics, and it models how to disagree with dignity.

Who is the main audience of a formal debate, and why does that matter?Show answer

Debates rarely convert the opponent on the stage. The main audience is the people in the room and watching online, many of whom have never heard the Christian case presented clearly next to its alternative. A good debate shows Christianity can stand up to its strongest critics and models disagreeing with dignity.

Not the opponent
Audience in room and online
Case next to alternative
Models dignity

The structure

Formats vary, but most apologetics debates look something like this. Always confirm the format and time limits with the organisers in writing well in advance.

Opening statements (often 15-20 minutes each). Define terms, state your thesis and present your main arguments. The affirmative usually goes first.
First rebuttals (often 8-12 minutes). Respond to your opponent's arguments and defend your own against their attacks.
Second rebuttals (often 5-8 minutes). Tighten the key points; do not introduce major new arguments.
Cross-examination (often 6-10 minutes each way, sometimes earlier in the format). Each side questions the other directly.
Closing statements (often 5 minutes). Summarise why you have carried the resolution and appeal to the audience.
Audience Q&A, which tests whether you can answer quickly, briefly and kindly.

Describe the typical parts of a debate and what each one is for.Show answer

Opening statements define terms, state the thesis and present main arguments. Rebuttals respond to the opponent and defend your own arguments, with second rebuttals tightening key points without major new arguments. Cross-examination lets each side question the other directly, closing statements summarise why you carried the resolution, and audience Q&A tests quick, brief, kind answers.

Openings: define and argue
Rebuttals: respond, no new major arguments
Cross-examination
Closings and Q&A

Preparing a case

Start with the resolution. Define every key term, because many debates are lost when opponents talk past each other. 'Does God exist?' depends on what you mean by 'God' (the triune God of Scripture, or any creator?) and by 'exist'.

Choose three to five arguments and present each clearly with numbered premises. William Lane Craig is famous for doing this: he typically lays out a cumulative case (several independent arguments that together point to the same conclusion), for example the cosmological, fine-tuning, moral and resurrection arguments, and states two clear contentions (the main claims he will defend): that there are good reasons to think God exists, and that there are no comparably good reasons to think atheism is true. Audiences can follow numbered premises easily, and opponents must answer them specifically. Do not worry if these arguments are new to you; you study them in Foundations of Defence, Lessons 3 and 4. Here the focus is on how to present them.

Study your opponent. Read their books, watch their previous debates and list their favourite arguments. James White is known for preparing intensively by reading his opponent's published work, so that in debates such as his January 2009 exchange with Bart Ehrman on New Testament textual variation, or his many debates with Muslim scholar Shabir Ally, he could cite his opponent's own words. Write a brief, prepared answer to each argument you expect.

For a Reformed presuppositional model, listen to Greg Bahnsen's 1985 debate with atheist Gordon Stein at the University of California, Irvine. Bahnsen argued that the atheist worldview cannot account for logic, science and morality, and used cross-examination to show that Stein had to rely on things his worldview could not explain.

Why should you define the key terms of the resolution, and why present arguments with numbered premises?Show answer

Many debates are lost when opponents talk past each other, so terms like 'God' and 'exist' in 'Does God exist?' need defining. Numbered premises, as William Lane Craig uses, are easy for audiences to follow. They also force your opponent to answer each premise specifically.

Avoid talking past each other
Define 'God' and 'exist'
Premises easy to follow
Opponent must answer specifically

How does the lesson suggest you study your opponent, and what do White's and Bahnsen's examples show?Show answer

Read their books, watch their previous debates, list their favourite arguments and write a brief answer to each one you expect. James White prepared by reading his opponents' published work, so he could cite their own words, as in his debates with Bart Ehrman and Shabir Ally. Bahnsen's 1985 debate with Gordon Stein shows a presuppositional model, using cross-examination to show that Stein relied on things his worldview could not explain.

Read books, watch debates
Prepare answers in advance
White cites opponents' words
Bahnsen's cross-examination

Flowing the debate

To flow means to take structured notes during a debate so you can answer every argument. Draw columns on a page: one for each speech. Write each of your opponent's arguments in shorthand down the left, then draw arrows across as you answer them. In your rebuttals, go down the flow in order: 'My opponent made four arguments. First... Second...' This shows the audience you are not dodging.

Also flow your own arguments and watch which ones your opponent ignores. A dropped argument is one your opponent never answered. Point it out: 'Notice that my opponent has still given no response to the moral argument.' That is often one of the most powerful moves in a closing statement.

What does it mean to 'flow' a debate, and what is a dropped argument?Show answer

Flowing means taking structured notes in columns, one per speech, writing each opponent argument down the left and drawing arrows as you answer them. It lets you go through every argument in order, showing you are not dodging. A dropped argument is one your opponent never answered, and pointing it out ('My opponent has still given no response to...') is a powerful closing move.

Structured notes in columns
Answer every argument in order
Dropped = never answered
Point it out in closing

Cross-examination technique

Cross-examination is where many debates are decided, and where many beginners struggle. The goal is not to give another speech but to get concessions you can use later.

Ask short, closed questions that invite yes or no. 'Do you agree the universe began to exist?' is better than 'What do you think about the origin of the universe?' Build a chain of small concessions that leads to your point. Know the answer before you ask. If your opponent starts a long speech, politely interrupt: 'Thank you, I just have limited time. Would you say yes or no?' Then use the concessions in your next speech: 'In cross-examination my opponent agreed that...'

When you are being questioned, answer directly and briefly. If a question contains a false assumption, say so in one sentence. Do not be afraid to say 'I don't know' if that is the honest answer. Never lie, overclaim or bluff; the audience can tell.

Prepare your cross-examination in advance as a chain, not a list. Write the concession you want at the bottom of the page, then work backwards: what smaller admission would make that concession hard to refuse, and what admission comes before that? Plan for the two likely answers to each question, and have a follow-up ready for both. Finally, practise with a friend playing your opponent and time yourself strictly. Most beginners discover they ask too many open questions and run out of time before reaching the point.

What is the goal of cross-examination, and why are short, closed questions better than open ones?Show answer

The goal is not another speech but concessions you can use later. Short closed questions like 'Do you agree the universe began to exist?' invite a yes or no and build a chain of small admissions towards your point. Open questions let the opponent give a speech and use up your limited time.

Get usable concessions
Yes or no questions
Chain of small admissions
Open questions waste time

Explain how to prepare a cross-examination 'as a chain, not a list', and how to behave when you are the one being questioned.Show answer

Write the concession you want at the bottom of the page and work backwards to smaller admissions that make it hard to refuse, planning follow-ups for the two likely answers to each question. Then practise with a friend and time yourself. When questioned, answer directly and briefly, name any false assumption in one sentence, say 'I don't know' if that is honest, and never lie, overclaim or bluff.

Start from the goal, work backwards
Plan for both answers
Practise and time it
Answer briefly and honestly

Character on the stage

Experienced Christian debaters such as Craig and White model a simple truth: the debate is not about you. Be gracious to your opponent before and after. Thank them publicly. Do not mock. Concede points that are true. The audience remembers how you made them feel, and many have been moved towards Christ by seeing a Christian handle a hostile opponent with steadiness and kindness. Where the format allows, make the gospel plain in your closing, because the people listening need Christ more than they need your argument. Pray before you go on stage, and remember that the outcome belongs to God.

Put in a sentence or two you could say to a friend why character matters on the debate stage.Show answer

The debate is not about you: be gracious, thank your opponent, never mock and concede what is true, because the audience remembers how you made them feel. Many have been moved towards Christ by seeing a Christian handle a hostile opponent with steadiness and kindness. Pray beforehand and leave the outcome to God.

Not about you
Gracious; concede truth
Audience remembers manner
Outcome belongs to God

In their own words

“The Gish gallop: presenting a huge number of quick arguments so the opponent cannot answer them all in the time given.” (Common debate tactic; answer by grouping arguments and pointing to the strongest few)

“The filibuster: answering a cross-examination question with a long speech to run down the clock.” (Common in cross-ex; politely request a short answer)

“The redefinition: changing the meaning of key terms (e.g. 'faith means believing without evidence') to win by definition.” (Common; define terms in your opening and hold to them)

“The burden dodge: 'Atheism has no burden of proof; I'm just here to critique your arguments.'” (Common framing in 'Does God exist?' debates)

Key texts

Acts 17:2-3: Paul reasoned from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise. Debate has deep roots in apostolic practice.
Acts 19:8-10: Paul reasoned daily in the hall of Tyrannus for two years, and the word spread throughout Asia. Public reasoning reaches beyond the room.
Proverbs 18:17: The first to plead his case seems right until another comes and examines him. A biblical description of cross-examination.
Jude 3: Contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Earnest defence is a calling.
Titus 1:9: Elders must be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and rebuke those who contradict it.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Debates are just entertainment. Nobody ever changes their mind.”Show a response

Some debates are mostly entertainment, and the people on stage rarely change their minds on the spot. But the main audience is not the opponent. Many people have testified that watching a debate was a turning point, because they saw for the first time that Christianity has serious reasons behind it, or that the atheist case was weaker than they had assumed. Change often happens slowly, over weeks and months, as an argument keeps working. Paul's daily reasoning in Ephesus led to the word spreading through a whole province (Acts 19:10). Debates also train Christians, who learn how to answer objections they will meet at work and school. They are one tool among many, not the only one.

“In cross-examination you only ask yes or no questions. That's unfair; real issues are complicated.”Show a response

Real issues are complicated, which is why each side also has long speeches. Cross-examination has a different purpose: to clarify exactly what each person believes so the audience can compare. Short questions are fair as long as they are honest and do not hide a false assumption, like 'Have you stopped beating your dog?' If a question needs a qualification, the person can give it briefly, and then explain fully in their next speech. I'm happy for you to ask me yes or no questions too. If my view can't survive a simple, honest question, that tells the audience something important.

“Christian debaters like Craig just recycle the same five arguments. It's a script.”Show a response

Repeating a good argument is not a weakness; it's what you would expect if the argument is sound and has not been refuted. Scientists repeat the evidence for well-established theories too. The real question is whether the opponent has answered the arguments. In fact, one advantage of a consistent case is that critics have had years to find flaws in it, and the premises are now discussed in peer-reviewed philosophy literature. If an argument is weak, show which premise is false and why. Calling it a script is an observation about the speaker's habits, not a reason to think the conclusion is false.

“Debates just reward whoever is the slicker speaker. Winning a debate proves nothing about who is actually right.”Show a response

You're right that a polished speaker can make a weak case sound strong, and a debate result is not a proof. That's exactly why a good debater should make arguments easy to check rather than just impressive. Clear definitions, numbered premises and answering every point in order let the audience see what was argued and what was left unanswered. Cross-examination exposes whether claims hold up under direct questions. And a Christian debater should never bluff or overclaim, because the goal is truth, not applause. The real value of a debate is that the audience hears both cases side by side and can test them for themselves. Whoever 'wins' on the night, the arguments are now out in the open to be weighed.

“Why give a platform to atheists or false teachers? Debating them just makes their errors look respectable.”Show a response

That's a fair pastoral concern, and wisdom matters in choosing whom to debate and in what setting. But Paul reasoned publicly with those who disagreed, in the synagogue at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2-3) and in the hall of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9). Today most people meet these objections online whether we debate or not, often with no Christian answer nearby. A debate puts the Christian case next to the alternative, so the audience can see that Christianity can stand up to its strongest critics. It also models how to disagree with dignity, which itself commends Christ. The aim is not to honour the error but to answer it clearly, in front of the people who most need to hear the answer.

Written task

You are debating the resolution 'The resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the historical evidence.' Write (a) a 200-word outline of your opening case with numbered points and defined terms, and (b) a cross-examination plan of 6-8 short questions for an opponent who claims the disciples experienced grief hallucinations (see Foundations of Defence, Lesson 4, on rival theories). Explain in two sentences what concession you are aiming for.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Defines key terms (e.g. 'historical evidence', 'best explanation') clearly
Opening outline has a clear thesis and numbered, accurate points (e.g. empty tomb, appearances, origin of the disciples' belief)
Cross-ex questions are short, closed, honest and build in a logical chain
Explains the target concession and how it will be used in rebuttal
Represents the hallucination hypothesis fairly