Re: "Any good debate tips?"

Certainly, Bandi. Welcome, by the way. Always happy to get a new member on here. (Guessing you are new. Haven't seen you before.) Anyway, I am certainly no expert on the debate matter, but I do know a couple of tidbits about offending people. lol For starters, why get so worried about offending anybody in the first place? People get offended all the time. Big whoop. Not your problem. Matter of fact, there are likely people in this world right now whom we have never met, but they are offended that we even exist. Oh well. Nothing you can do about it, and I'm sure as hell not going to apologize to them for my existence. Therefore, put that worry out of your mind.
Second, (And this is just my own personal view, mind you. Nothing factual claimed.) there is a very subtle difference between offending somebody and just outright insulting them. My personal opinion is that insulting is done intentionally. You purposely meant your action/statement to be hurtful. Offending, on the other hand, is done without malice and is not necessarily intentional. Thing is, insults and offenses are totally subjective. What may be insulting or offensive to one person might get you laughed at by another. So, again, unless you are intentionally trying to insult and piss off a person, don't worry about offending that person. If what you are speaking is something you believe to be as true, sound, and rational, and you are doing so in a reasonable and non-confrontational manner, then piss on them if they get offended. Ain't your problem.
Hope that helps. Looking forward to seeing some of your posts.

Christians try to impose their silly religion on everyone through the political and education systems. They threaten non-believers with hell. They door-knock and accost people in public trying to sell their death cult. They claim ownership of morality.

How rude is that? I don't think we need to worry about offending their sensitive little minds. Despite what religionists demand, nobody has the right not to be offended, and nobody can demand respect. Respect is earned.

In debate you need to keep calm. If you lose your temper you've lost the game. Remember the power of humor. Try to break their train of thought by cutting in with apparently naive questions. If god created the world, who created god? Where did all the water go after the Noah flood? How did the kangaroos and kiwis get home? Why did Mary have to be a virgin? I'm sure you can think of lots more to have ready in your mind.

As Napoleon said, never interrupt your opponent when he's making a mistake. If they say something illogical (as they always do), lead them on to say more. Let them build a mountain of bullshit over their own heads. Then drop it on them.

Kampfer has a good point in one respect. Sometimes, once you get them started, if you simply remain silent and let them do all the talking, they usually end up winning the debate for you. LOL

The fact that you exist (an atheist) is already offensive to many of them; I think you're trying to accomplish the impossible.

I would add: note the value of framing or couching the point in question thoughtfully. Wording is important. Try to avoid being accusatory.

Quality is far more important than quantity.

Characterise rather than label people.

Another good way to proceed is to explore a subject together rather than view someone as having to win or lose a point or a debate. Discussion is often seen as a conflict in the West, but that is seldom helpful. The truth is usually uncovered rather than explained to someone who is wrong or "being stupid". If someone is too dim to respect or to comprehend, why speak to them?

It is also common for people to start a discussion after they have reached a conclusion, but if it is desirable for one interlocutor to change their opinions it is important that both are willing to do so and use language consistent with that. Otherwise be clear about the purpose of the discussion. I don't expect religionists to change their minds in response to my posts, but I do expect a frank exchange of views might change an opinion after some reflection. It may also influence observers.

I find it useful to pay close attention to the language. For Example: When someone tells me, "I believe god exists." Or "I believe in Jesus." They are stating a fact. They really do believe this. Do not confuse this statement with something like "God exists" or "Jesus is my savior." These are statements of fact and can be challenged. (Not that the other statements can't be challenged but how you go about it is everything.)

For the type one argument, "I believe in Jesus." The person has a perfect right to do that. So the argument is "What do you believe and why?" Do you have any good reasons for your belief and if so what are they. Keeping in mind that they have a right to their own opinion. Understanding that their opinion is valid is important. Everyone has a right to their own opinion but not to their own facts.

Keeping in mind the distinction between fact and opinion, when the assertion is made that a God exists, evidence can be demanded. The person is making an assertion about the real world. What I generally do here is debunk any argument they may give, Pascal's Wager, Design, Morality etc... and get them to admit that it is only their opinion. Even the argument from personal experience is just an opinion. I feel that if I can get them to see that belief in their God is only opinion, and they are welcome to their opinion, I am moving them a step closer to questioning that opinion.

In short, this is an "Attack the idea and not the person," sort of strategy. Allowing people to have their own belief and opinion without challenging it other than to ask "Why?" seems to work. Challenging people on "Factual Statements" and getting them to understand that they are only asserting an opinion appears to get them thinking.

You are dealing in a sensitive subject. People are gonna get offended dispite your best efforts. As a rule of thumb, don't intentional offend or be rude, and then your conscience is clear.