David Wolpe - He always sounds so fascinating and honest ... until you realize everything he says is based on personal beliefs and has no evidence. But he means well. He is a good guy and isn't a total DOUCHE to listen to and watch like William Lane Craig is.
You can search his name on You Tube and find some good debates.
Interesting question, Erik. Shmuley Boteach is a very colorful guy to watch. I think he concedes on a lot of points that a logical person would. Of course, he's an orthodox Rabbi so the logic only goes so far, but I generally enjoy listening to the guy.
Boteach may be colorful but he is a know-nothing idiot who hasn't had an original thought... well ever, and uses the same debunked non-sequiturs that his ilk have been spreading for centuries. He thinks the values of the founding fathers of the U.S were faith based, and he thinks atheism is a philosophy of nihilism.
I agree with Dustin - in that David Wolpe hasn't got that "facepalm effect" of other debators.
the philosopher i respect the most is Peter Van Inwagen. I think all of the debaters are douches.
Yeah, Wolp is OK. Boteach I wasn't very impressed with.
This is kinda cheating the discussion I made, but I really liked listening to Robert Wright in this debate. Except he claims to be "neutral" rather than pro- or anti-religion.
I think Wilson is cannon fodder for any thinking person, but yea, I do respect him for not being a total douchebag. If by thoughtful pro-religion arguments you mean implying that snakes might have talked @ 2:35 then by all means yes. A funny one.