• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hitchens vs. D'Souza Debate Monday October 22 in NYC

jhuntington

Thinker
jhuntington
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
151
Location
Brooklyn
I have another event that same night, but I might try to make it over. This should be entertaining!

From:http://www.tkc.edu/advancement/media/newsrelease.asp?id=55

The King’s College Hosts Debate Between Dinesh D'Souza and Christopher Hitchens


New York—On Monday, October 22, at 7:30pm, The King’s College will sponsor a debate between cultural critics Dinesh D’Souza and Christopher Hitchens at the New York Society for Ethical Culture, 64th Street and Central Park West, in New York City. The debate will address the question, “Is Christianity the problem?” The debate is free and open to the public. Doors open at 7 PM.
Click to expand...
 
I went and I have to say it was great. There was a huge line to get in, full of all these well dressed, overly smiley Chrisitian students from "The Kings College", who sponsored the debate. I was a bit worried that they would fill the hall and not let in any Hitchens supporters, but when Hitchens got applause it was clear that he had significant support in the audience.

Hitchens was as witty and erudite as ever, and got a significant number of laughs from the entire audience. I won't even attempt to quote anything he said since I would fail miserably, and I think everyone here is pretty familiar with his viewpoint.

I find D'Souza to be a particularly annoying little troll. He continually sets up straw men (he kept talking about "the atheists" as though we're a monolithic block, although I guess we do the same when we talk about the "Christians") and used really petty and Fox-news like tactics to try and catch out Hitchens. But Hitchens would have none of it. D'Souza often sounded like a preacher, which of course went over well in that crowd, and D'Souza got the biggest applause after he asked Hitchens a question, and Hitchens talked for some time. Then D'Souza said something like, "That's what these atheists do--they dominate the public square not letting in any opposing ideas". That was pathetic but the Kings College sheep loved that. Oh yes, those oppressed christians--we world-dominating atheists never let them say ANYthing. That was pretty much the height of his rhetorical abilities. He got two laughs with two stupid jokes. One, after responding to Hitchens he said, "I'm like the insect at the nudist colony, I don't know where to start". And something similarly (non) witty. Hitchens got laughs from a wide spectrum of the audience with his standard, biting, incredibly eloquent and pithy summarizations of whole swaths of human history.

I doubt many of the believers were convinced, and certainly preacher D'Souza didn't convince any non-believers, but I would wager that Hitchens would have had an effect on any of the sheep there who were starting to doubt...

John
 
I, too, was at the debate last night, and I have to say, I almost completely disagree with the above poster. I thought Hitchens got pinned to the wall, if only because of his rambling on and not answering some questions. True, these questions cannot be reconciled during a 90-minute debate, but I thought D'Souza -- however preachy and sometimes annoying -- was a bit more eloquent in the debate style; that is, asking and answering direct questions. Of course, he was quite the "annoying little troll" when he'd interrupt Hitchens but, to be fair, our dear atheist friend rambled on about Islam for quite a while during a debate about Christianity. Maybe the two go hand in hand, maybe they don't; but it slightly reeked of misdirection, even though, as an atheist myself, I know that not to be the case.

I did enjoy the debate, however. Very much, in fact! But, the result remains that, in my opinion, Hitchens didn't sway any Christians at all. However erudite and eloquent Hitchens may be, seemingly ducking relevant questions isn't how one wins a debate.
 
jhuntington said:
I went and I have to say it was great. There was a huge line to get in, full of all these well dressed, overly smiley Chrisitian students from "The Kings College", who sponsored the debate. I was a bit worried that they would fill the hall and not let in any Hitchens supporters, but when Hitchens got applause it was clear that he had significant support in the audience.

Hitchens was as witty and erudite as ever, and got a significant number of laughs from the entire audience. I won't even attempt to quote anything he said since I would fail miserably, and I think everyone here is pretty familiar with his viewpoint.

I find D'Souza to be a particularly annoying little troll. He continually sets up straw men (he kept talking about "the atheists" as though we're a monolithic block, although I guess we do the same when we talk about the "Christians") and used really petty and Fox-news like tactics to try and catch out Hitchens. But Hitchens would have none of it. D'Souza often sounded like a preacher, which of course went over well in that crowd, and D'Souza got the biggest applause after he asked Hitchens a question, and Hitchens talked for some time. Then D'Souza said something like, "That's what these atheists do--they dominate the public square not letting in any opposing ideas". That was pathetic but the Kings College sheep loved that. Oh yes, those oppressed christians--we world-dominating atheists never let them say ANYthing. That was pretty much the height of his rhetorical abilities. He got two laughs with two stupid jokes. One, after responding to Hitchens he said, "I'm like the insect at the nudist colony, I don't know where to start". And something similarly (non) witty. Hitchens got laughs from a wide spectrum of the audience with his standard, biting, incredibly eloquent and pithy summarizations of whole swaths of human history.

I doubt many of the believers were convinced, and certainly preacher D'Souza didn't convince any non-believers, but I would wager that Hitchens would have had an effect on any of the sheep there who were starting to doubt...

John
Click to expand...

I was there with my girlfriend. I really wished I had asked D'Souza this "As an Aunicornist, what do you say about all the famously brutal Aunicornist regimes" I have never seen any evidence that Hitler or Stalin believed in Unicorns so this is far more a uniting trait of them than their atheism.
 
Alliebubs said:
I, too, was at the debate last night, and I have to say, I almost completely disagree with the above poster. I thought Hitchens got pinned to the wall, if only because of his rambling on and not answering some questions. True, these questions cannot be reconciled during a 90-minute debate, but I thought D'Souza -- however preachy and sometimes annoying -- was a bit more eloquent in the debate style; that is, asking and answering direct questions. Of course, he was quite the "annoying little troll" when he'd interrupt Hitchens but, to be fair, our dear atheist friend rambled on about Islam for quite a while during a debate about Christianity. Maybe the two go hand in hand, maybe they don't; but it slightly reeked of misdirection, even though, as an atheist myself, I know that not to be the case.

I did enjoy the debate, however. Very much, in fact! But, the result remains that, in my opinion, Hitchens didn't sway any Christians at all. However erudite and eloquent Hitchens may be, seemingly ducking relevant questions isn't how one wins a debate.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it is faster to lie than to rebut a lie. No one seemed to care one thing at all that his strongest arguement was that miricles can not be totaly disproven to exist, and the same with god.

He made some horrible horrible arguments.

For example his arguments about the need for morality to be instilled is entirely wrong.
 
Alliebubs said:
I, too, was at the debate last night, and I have to say, I almost completely disagree with the above poster.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think you pretty much agreed with me :)

However erudite and eloquent Hitchens may be, seemingly ducking relevant questions isn't how one wins a debate.
Click to expand...

OK, now I completely disagree with you :) Hitchens never ducked any questions, in fact he specifically tried to answer the most direct charges. D'Souza may be better at "debate style" but all he did was intentionally ask Hitchens questions and group him into baseless categories and level charges that could NOT possibly be answered in the time given. I hardly see that as pinning Hitchens "to the wall".

No one was going to "win" this debate. The sheep are not going to budge. All we can hope for is that Hitchens gave a little ammo to those who may be on the fence, and are open minded.

John
 
I didn't think that Hitchens did particularly well; he kept trying to turn the discussion into one about the truth of theism vs. atheism rather than the question whether Christianity is a net positive for society, which was the nominal topic. The numerous references to Islam were unnecessary and undermined his credibility with an already mostly-hostile audience. He decently articulated a few traditional atheist talking points, but didn't do a good job at all of taking on D'Souza's primary theme, that no one had any concept of compassion until Jesus Christ came along to enlighten us all. He also could have done a hell of a lot better responding to D'Souza's argument that altruism extending beyond the immediate family can't be explained in evolutionary terms-- I have no doubt that D'Souza is well aware that Dawkins and others have offered pretty good evolutionary accounts of that phenomenon. I would also have liked a longer discussion of D'Souza's complete misrepresentation of Hume's problem of induction and his suggestion that scientific inquiry itself rests on a leap of faith; Hitchens seemed to completely misunderstand the point, though that may well be because D'Souza didn't seem to understand it very well, either.

That said, I totally agree with jhuntington that most of D'Souza's tactics were based on intentional misrepresentation and vague personal attacks. His closing statement makes this clear: atheism, you see, is not an intellectual or a scientific position at all, but simply a "moral rebellion" by individuals too weak or too self-interested to live their lives in accordance with the Bible.
 
jhuntington said:
No one was going to "win" this debate. The sheep are not going to budge. All we can hope for is that Hitchens gave a little ammo to those who may be on the fence, and are open minded.

John
Click to expand...

Hmm. I still disagree. I think someone could most certainly "win" a debate through the manner in which they present their argument. I most certainly agree that D'Souza was very preachy, but also I felt he was the most to-the-point during the discussion. And that, in my opinion, is what you want to see in a debater.

I love Hitchens; really, ask my boyfriend, and he'll tell you all about it. :) But, speaking from an objective point of view, I think he still lost to D'Souza. D'Souza's arguments were mostly bunk, of course, but Hitchens really didn't do a very good job in understanding the "points" that D'Souza was trying to articulate.

(On an aside, a woman tried to "convert" me -- maybe -- shortly after the debate. My poor boyfriend was standing there, holding my raincoat, as this woman droned on for a bit, asking if I worked in science, because I was agreeing with Hitchens quite a lot. When I told her that no, actually, I work in art, she looked very confused. Guess only scientists are atheists, eh?)
 
Last edited:
Alliebubs said:
Hmm. I still disagree. I think someone could most certainly "win" a debate through the manner in which they present their argument. I most certainly agree that D'Souza was very preachy, but also I felt he was the most to-the-point during the discussion. And that, in my opinion, is what you want to see in a debater.
Click to expand...

So lies are ok as long as they are on topic? He presented a great number of simply false statements. Claiming that there where any real number of athiests in the higher echelons of the third reich for example. Sure there where some who might be pagan, but a pagan and an atheist are distinctly different.
[quote
I love Hitchens; really, ask my boyfriend, and he'll tell you all about it. :) But, speaking from an objective point of view, I think he still lost to D'Souza. D'Souza's arguments were mostly bunk, of course, but Hitchens really didn't do a very good job in understanding the "points" that D'Souza was trying to articulate.

(On an aside, a woman tried to "convert" me -- maybe -- shortly after the debate. My poor boyfriend was standing there, holding my raincoat, as this woman droned on for a bit, asking if I worked in science, because I was agreeing with Hitchens quite a lot. When I told her that no, actually, I work in art, she looked very confused. Guess only scientists are atheists, eh?)[/QUOTE]

Ah the man next to my girlfriend was saying Amen after D'Souza spoke apparently.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So lies are ok as long as they are on topic? He presented a great number of simply false statements.
Click to expand...
I agree strongly that with the sentiment that lies and misrepresentations are not acceptable within the context of a rational debate, but that does not mean they cannot be persuasive if: (1) the audience is not sufficiently versed in the material to recognize the deception, and (2) they are not likely to do their homework on the matter later. Therefore, the appearance of staying on topic is significant from a tactical perspective. It's unlikely that audience members who literaly view Jesus as the exclusive source of human morality, for example, are knowlegeable enough to readily understand the relevance of Hitchens digression into Islam; maintaining a tighter focus on the central theme of the debate -- and doing so within Christian terms -- would have been strategicaly helpful.

Obviously it places tremendous demands on anyone in Hitchens' position to identify and counter deliberate, strategic mistatements on the fly (having almost no time to review or reflect on their nature before preparing a response), so I by no means wish to disparage him. Also, D'Souza seems particularly adept at playing to the audience while "carpet bombing" myths and allegations to throw an opponent off ballance.

Scorecard:
Logical Integrity: Hitchens
Tactical Advantage: D'Souza
Overall: Draw
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom