Synopsis of Hitchens’ Dallas Debate

Seen here [ Hitchens Debate Video ]

Quick note about this synopsis. It may seem like a biased review, and I suppose it is to a certain extent, but my intention was to do the following: Pick out any argument that was particularly interesting (whether particularly good or bad or whatever) to me. In doing this it just so happened that most of the apologists’ arguments were not new or even framed in a new light, and therefore uninteresting. If anyone finds something I skipped to be particularly interesting, feel free to reply.

16:00 – Seven of the faultiest logical arguments you will hear this week

30:15 – Moderator tries to argue that Hitchens’ arguments/philosophies are only applicable to a few people. However, he comes out and says christianity is for the weak and un-intelligent. Even if you assume his argument is correct, still seems like he loses.

37:00 — Hitchens makes a good point (although sidestepping the original question to a degree) about the idea of a compassionate god. And also about the amorality of suffering in this life being ok because it is promised to be rectified in another.

40:00ish — Argument between “believing in god means there will be justice for wrongs in this life” vs. “believing in no god means humanity is responsible for bringing justice, not sitting idly by”.

52:20ish — Hitchens asks a good question about morality. Apologists bring up responses by rewording the question. He says name an action I couldn’t take. They list actions he wouldn’t take.

1:00:00 — Hitchens develops a cold. Then makes a decent point that christianity says “I created you sick and evil, now get right or else go to hell”

1:05:00 — “I’m a Christian and I have a monopoly on morality”. Then an audience member makes a good question. Then the moderator (really are you moderating at this point?) answers for the apologists.

1:08:00 — Hitchens goes off on a tangent for no reason, everyone is confused and silent, answer the question plz.

1:12:00-1:20:00ish — Snapdragon! One of the apologists admits that things are caused by evolution. Then after a long discussion they say that without god music, love, poetry, etc. doesn’t have any meaning. What?

1:33:00ish — apologist says the bible is a practical book, not a speculative book and that we should use it as a practical guide to every day life. Then to prove his point he murdered Hitchens for being a heretic and allowed the panel to rape his daughters.

1:37:00 — Hitchens makes a humorous derisive comment about believers in general. That is what I think is entertaining about him, he’ll say whatever in front of whomever.

1:39:00 — Crazy old guy in the audience demands the microphone based on discrimination, raises argument based on scientific knowledge, then admits he doesn’t understand science.  Also, crazy.

1:51:00ish — Hitchens closing. Meh. His very last thought was amusing.

1:56:00 — Last apologist’s closing statement. Lists 10 arguments that he says Hitchens didn’t refute. I agree, he didn’t directly point out the logical fallacies with each of those arguments. However, it is a good list of arguments for christianity that are easily refuted in a 15 minute logical analysis, or 2 minute search of the internet. He then claims atheism is and has been proven false. Cool. “You didn’t prove me wrong to my satisfaction in this one particular sitting therefore you are wrong.” At least one of the apologists stepped up (unfoundedly) to be directly confrontational at the end.

 

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.