Dennett confirms the generalization that people who defend science do so arrogantly. For example, Dennett's hypothetical belief of supermanism. This seems to make fun of theists, which is unnecessary in a scientific debate. Another condescending example would be the court story. Dennett proclaims that naturalism is evident in the courtroom. To claim that Satan and his minions contributed to this accidental death is a bit ridiculous. If Dennett wants to convince people, he should use better, less far-fetched examples and use a different tone. These arguments will not change your mind. Dennett appears to be an angry atheist, just like Dr. House and even House couldn't change his patients' faith. Most people don't like listening to people who seem angry. Tone is essential in a debate. Dennett must confirm the truth rather than assume the truth in his argument. Another problem I had with Dennett's debating style is that I'm not sure of his beliefs. Plantinga lays out his case for it, making his argument easier to read and try to understand. On the other hand, Dennett counters four of Plantinga's items. Dennett would be more successful if he laid out his own arguments and then tried to discredit the arguments made by Plantinga. This seems more reasonable and less