8 of 12 in debate between Baker and Koukl

I can't believe that John Baker calls Greg's point of view or points incoherent, when it appears to be the other way around. He isn't addressing the main point at all.

Baker goes on to suggest that there is nothing really beautiful or ugly in the world, those are just our projections! As if saying so could make that true, if it even made sense to begin with! How do you project something like that onto another thing anyway? Baker didn't explain how, and I think partly why is that there is no way to explain it. I find Baker to be grasping desperately to make his points, but not doing very well.

Good for Greg to point out the incoherence of John's actual points. He makes so much more logical sense. You can't just assert a point, and make it count as a reason to justify one's side. You have to actually give good reasons that are coherent and logical and ring true. Koukl has done this ongoing, Baker has not throughout, in my opinion.