3 thoughts on “Hitchens vs Turek Debate Video and Mp3”

  1. If you listen carefully–and given your apparent purpose with this website to further the idea of reasoned support for your beliefs–you need to pay attention to the possibility that Hitchens may well have had the upper hand in this debate. From where I was sitting, Turek indulged in a great deal more unprincipled leaps of false logic, and Hitchens–who, in spite of his appearing to have been having a bit of an “off” night–hewed to clear logic and principled thinking.

    Furthermore, Hitchens got in quite a few pitches “from the gut”, and they seemed to have more mileage than Turek’s in view of the latter’s tendency to hew to doctrine in a way that sometimes verged on obsequy; which was especially noticeable in light of Hitchens’ devoting some energy to highlighting that spiritually degrading aspect that attends much theism.

    Lastly, from a stylistic standpoint, Hitchens won the humor skirmish. Turek is a seasoned debating performer, and had to repeatedly draw one notable trick from his bag; turning on a dime when a stock joke fell flat. In contrast, notice how Hitchens’ humor is natural, free, emanating from a warm humanity that everyone could relate to. This isn’t to say Hitchens didn’t read a joke or two off one of his cuffs; but even then he finds the right one, at the right time; and even folks (like me) who’ve pretty much heard them all can appreciate the fine sensibility he applies in these instances.

    In short, it was heartwarming to see Hitchens in fine form, and a little surprising to see him paired up with a fellow who seemed to have trouble noticing his own ill-considered logical leaps.

  2. Ron, I don’t think that I would express Hitchens performance in those terms, but thanks for sharing. Hitchens is a likable guys and like Turek said, he could agree with many of the things Hitchens had written on related to politics and governement.

    The problem with Hitchens is not his ability to debate or use rhetoric. The problem is that he misrepresents almost everything he talks about in religion. He’s not “playing fair” in that respect and for that reason I have no reason to take him sereously. He’s a horrible historian of religion and much of what he says is said in order to appeal to everyone sensabilities… but it’s just not true. He doesn’t understand the Christian message and that comes out time and time again. I can agree with much of his critique of “religion” as he defines religion. But that’s not what Christianity is or what the Bible teaches.

    Hope that helps clarify my position on the debate results. 🙂

Comments are closed.