Okay, just for fun, I'll pretend this is worth responding to:
1. Intentionally twist any scripture to have less or more than it's intended meaning.
Look, that's its, not it's. And you really should have started your list with "Harp on things like grammar and spelling instead of addressing the issues ..."
2) Ignore dispensational exgesis and time tested methods of interpretation in favor of JW style single scripture exgesis.
Just so you know, a person can disbelieve the Bible and still believe in God. Atheists are not necessarily anti-Bible, anti-Christian, anti-religion. A discussion of the existence of God need not include the Bible. You're betraying a strong Christian bias here, and in a proper debate, one's bias ought to be suspended.
3) Pretend that you are above everyone else in intelligence and knowledge.
Arguing intelligently and using facts in a debate and demonstrating knowledge is a bad thing now? See #5.
4) Pretend that your every statement is factual and there is no room for disagreement.
When it comes to facts, there is no room for disagreement. Duh! It's the interpretation of facts that's difficult. For example, if I say, "It's 98 degrees outside; man, that's hot," I have, in the first clause, given you an indisputable fact. In the second clause, I've interpreted that fact. You could disagree, pointing out, for example, that compared to the temperature on the surface of Mars, 98 degrees is downright chilly. We would then have to settle semantic issues, set parameters, qualify assumptions, etc. It's complicated, and many people who try to hold onto their faith in the midst of so many qualifications get irritated, as you seem to be here.
5) Intimidate your opponent by slander and insult.
Well, look, people on both sides do that. If atheists tend to be intellectually condescending, those of faith tend to be morally condescending. Whatever.
6) Use various 'logical' terms to make yourself sound well...logical!
Does that include terms like "dispensational exegesis," "'straw man' arguments," "generalization," etc.?
7) Use 'straw man' arguments and generalization to gain an edge from the beginning of the debate.
Hey, you wouldn't be a hypocrite, would you? You know, the very title of this post is a generalization -- "Atheist debate techniques." Or didn't you notice that?
8) Pretend that science is clearly on your side and that no 'reputable scientist' would disagree with your claims.
When the claims are factual and scientific, there's no reason for dispute, unless someone can prove they are untrue and unscientific. When the claims are also logical, there's practically no reason for dispute. See #4.
9) Have your various allies and followers 'chime in' by attacking your opponent while you work on your response.
Look at you, the Lone Ranger of True Believers everywhere! Must be hard for you, cowboy. (Seriously, are you going to tell me that theists never do the same thing? And more to the point, isn't this a discussion board, where all are free to weigh in with their views, opinions, arguments, etc.? Or would you prefer there to be less discussion when you're talking?)
10) Above all, pretend that God doesn't exist and that there is no evidence beyond the physical. Make it sound reasonable to believe that all life came from nothing and totally by accident.
Had a tough time coming up with number ten, did you? An atheist who pretends God doesn't exists is not an atheist, since he covertly believes in God. So what are you trying to say? All atheists are closet theists? Also, you're completely ignorant if you think that atheists believe "that all life came from nothing and totally by accident."
Dedalus
