I think one thing is less understood by younger people online (not specific to gen z/a, but just people who haven’t been online/thinking about issues for a long time) is that a lot of people are dismissive of arguments prima facie because they’ve heard them a million times.

I think that’s the main reason folks like BB get such a reaction, because lots of us have thought about these issues (admittedly not as deeply at times!) longer than he himself has been reading books period. He likes to assert that atheists think you can point out where an argument is wrong just by listening to it, which is kind of wrong…but also kind of right?

Like every argument falls into a species of arguments that all make the same or similar assumption, and a lot of popular apologetics that’s slightly higher brow than frank turek seems to be just more creative ways to formulate the same 5 species of arguments. So, sure, I can’t debunk it just by listening to it, but if you gave me 5-10 minutes, I probably could, not because I’m super smart, but because I’m familiar enough with the species of argument!