Apologetics: arguing for your brand of bullshyt better than your opponent
Honestly no one in this video impressed me. The dude arguing with the Mormons latched onto them saying "the people" rejected Jesus and argued that the Crucifixion was merely the standard method of execution under the Roman government.
Of course the actual Bible account does have the people, or populace, clamoring for Jesus' execution, shouting "Crucify him!" The Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, tried to let Jesus go, but he gave into public opinion and the protests of the Jewish assembly.
Not that it matters because it's all bullshyt anyway, but honestly the guy's argument was poor. He just did a good job of talking over these inexperienced Mormon youths.
The primary weakness in any religious argument is that there is no evidence for the existence of God and no evidence that one religion is any closer to truth than another. So if you genuinely believe, you will eventually either withdraw from the argument or become very emotional in your defense of it. It's an untenable position.
Whereas with me being an atheist yet knowledgeable of religion and the Bible, I can easily argue for bullshyt and competently obfuscate the actual issues. All it takes is logically dismantling a person's religious beliefs (which can be done with every religious belief) whilst at the same time promoting one particular brand of bullshyt, or religious belief, as the only "logical" conclusion, skillfully using logical fallacies to that end.
That's why I honestly think that the best apologetics are secretly atheist. There's too much intellectual dishonesty in religion for educated intelligent people who actually give a damn.
"You ready to learn something? " then left like 
