Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

Why did Christopher Hitchens get destroyed in a debate with William Lane Craig?

I guess Craig is the bane of atheists, even the intellectual ones

http://mikeduran.com/?p=2693

Update:

"Who won the debate? — I hate approaching debates this way, but it’s where most observers gravitate. As the crowd was leaving I overheard several people already debating who won. It’s interesting that several groups, like the Inland Empire Atheists group, openly concede the debate to Craig. The moderator of Common Sense Atheism even admitted, “Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.” Apparently, many atheists don’t think Hitchens is the greatest head-to-head proponent for their side. "

Update 2:

Even though Hitchens is one of the top, if not the top, intellectual atheist, should he be given a handicap next time to make it fairer?

17 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Maybe he's a bad speaker. I really don't care, though.

    This Hitchens v. Craig debate doesn't affect me at all. I have no idea who Craig even is, which shows just how much I care about this nonsense. Debates are stupid anyway, because they only represent the opinions and shortcomings of the people involved.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    He didn't. Craig failed in the debate because none of his points were based from an unbiased, evidential source. Craig quoted a lot of scripture, but in a debate, scripture does not equate to evidence. It's arguing from an assumption; Craig assumes the Bible is correct, but fails to prove its veracity. For anyone interested, you can find certain portions of this debate on Youtube. Craig is perhaps more composed than Hitchens, but both remain calm throughout the debate; however, Craig again and again bases his arguments on the assumption that God exists - which invalidates his arguments. [edit] "Dr Kent Hovind would destroy both Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins in one debate." How can Hovind debate anyone? He's in prison for fleecing his "flock" by tricking them into believing that his diploma mill education* gives him some sort of authority in the world of academia. *What else can you call a doctorate that comes from an unaccredited university that charges $25 a credit hour and provides a PhD in less than 2 years.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Hitchens got destroyed? Not really.

    You're right about one thing - it's not really useful to think of formal debates in terms of winning or losing. We tend to consider the guy we most agree with as the winner. Nothing is proven or disproven any more that we prove anything in this Yahoo Q&A board so the issue cannot be said to be settled or the debate won or lost. But it's interesting to hear the arguments stated by eloquent speakers.

    I didn't see hear the whole debate but there's excerpts on youtube.com. My opinion, for what it's worth? Hitchens spanked Craig like a superstitious child.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I can tell you I don't like Hitchens as much as a spokesman for atheism as I do Dawkins because Dawkins is a logic machine whereas Hitches is often more emotional and anecdotal. On arguments about teleology, the state of the universe or any scientifically testable proposition I find Dawkins' arguments much, much better whereas Hitchens is very good at arguing more human elements like feelings and morality.

    In any case, many very intelligent people cannot debate well and it says nothing about whether or not their proposition is true. Thomas Jefferson was a terrible speaker and would be an awful debater but given a pen and paper the man was a genius, for example.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I honestly couldn't care less. Neither of the two debaters can represent their respective beliefs for everyone who follows that belief.

    It only represents Hitchens and Craig. Nobody else.

    If one was given a handicap, it wouldn't be a fair debate any more.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I have no idea what in hell you're talking about.

    But let's assume you're saying something truthful. Does that mean:

    1) God DOES exist and craig proved it?

    2) YOU are intelligent because CRAIG won an argument?

    @NONE "Ben Stein did a good job exposing Hitchens' inconsistencies in "Expelled -No Intelligent Allowed".

    You're kidding, right? Ben Stein couldn't do a good job exposing himself much less anyone else. His peak intellectual performance was pushed to its limits doing dry eye commercials.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I like how you cut off your quotation right before the part where it says:

    "Either way, I dislike the “who won the debate” banter. Ideas are what’s at issue. We should judge the ideas by their own merit rather than the lucidity, wit, or charm of the messenger. Yes, delivery is important, and in this I’d say William Craig was the better of the two. Nevertheless, the Christian still faces legitimate, weighty, objections to their faith."

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    People who lose a debate or contest do so because they are unprepared and sloppy. If that is the case in this instance, then the winner deserved to win it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Actually he didn't:

    http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dtennapel/2009/0...

    Since Craig has heard all of the unassailable refutations of every argument he presents and continues to return to them, his is the argument from incredulity. All Hitch has to do is mention this once and Craig begins his slippery slope slide. Can't wait til it is boot-leggable.

    BTW, Duran wants to debate Craig b/c he knows he can also whip him.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The only thing I like about debates like this is that every time an atheist "debate" about and against God's existence the more I believe in Him. I mean, their arguments are so improbable that every time they do debate, the idea of God's existence is more probable in my heart.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.