Stephen said:

It's just a visceral reaction of mine, and not worthy of a truly skeptical attitude, yadda yadda, but I wouldn't trust Van Praagh to tell me the correct spelling of his name. Apparently in person he can be quite sympathetic and convincing, but the times I've seen him on TV make me wonder how he can make people believe anything at all.

The debating tactic I've heard Van Praagh use a few times, other than the "demonize the opposition/poison the well" trick (SKEPTICS IS EEVUL!) is to say that we don't know what we're talking about, because we're not mediums. I would imagine that he thinks he wins debates on this one, because I for one wouldn't know what to say to it, other than, "Hmm… use logic much?"

I would have an answer. I'd say that someone can tell me there's a pink elephant in the corner humping a monkey and only they can see it. My response would be to prove it or take your meds. Logic states that such incredible claims need proof to be taken seriously. Van Praagh needs to understand that increduality towards unproven claims is part of his biz. Random hits on generic "predictions" is not proof!! 

Van Praagh has given no real mouth dropping predictions. He just goes after distraught people that will say yes to anything that he says in the hopes that he is talking to their loved ones! It's clear he's a fraud because a true medium, if such a thing exists, would make a point to take a skeptic in a controlled enviroment and try to prove them wrong. Van Praagh has been given that opportunity and refuses to do it. Hmm, I wonder why?

He is just as bad as Sylvia Brown if not worse.