Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
D'Souza makes a great point @49:00. To add to this point; to believe Hitchens claim we have been here for 100,000 years, how does Hitchens explain the count of human population? If the population grew from 100,000,000 from the time of Christ to over 7 billion today how could it be possible for the population to grow from only 0 to 100,000,000 in 100,000 years? Hitchens argument has so many holes in it and D'Souza must of found it quite easy to demolish that one.
@YesYou123333 Did you stick around to hear Hitchen's response to that "argument"? Furthermore, it doesn't answer anything and instead switches the focus of his point; where was Heaven during this time?
There are numerous reasons as to why our population is so much greater now than it was before... do you really need me to list them? Modern medicine, modern technology, etc... Population growth has increased much more dramatically in the last 100 years because of these advances.
@YesYou123333 I haven't studied it in depth (admittedly). Hitchens seemingly claims that it was the arrival of monotheism, but I have read of the Natufian Culture being one of the first to develop an agricultural community (leading to modern society). Maybe they were one of the first to abandon its hunter & gatherer ways? I don't know and neither do you; saying "GOD DID IT!" is not an answer at all. Like I said before, it's a red-herring and God of the Gaps fallacy wrapped up into one.
@Dataika So, you think it was just a coincidence that at the exact same time a certain man is born who claims to be God and all of a sudden, out of nowhere, agricultural communities were formed, hunting and gathering stopped, the population began to explode, science and medicine progressed, etc? Why didn't this happen a 100 years before He was born? A 1000 years? 10,000 years? This human progression could of occurred at any time. All of these advancements occurred well after Christ was gone.
@YesYou123333 Excuse me? The Natufian culture was around in 12 - 9,000 BC. You're arguing that Christ exploded technological advancement is almost laughable. What is your evidence for this? First of all, the Church was responsible for the repression of many scientific advancements during the Middle Ages. Second of all, if timing is your only argument then you are in trouble.
@Dataika You're going to try and make the argument the world changed more between 9000 BC and the time of Christ then between the time of Christ and now!!! You're an idiot. As far as the Church and scientific discovery....who do you think financed all that research? Every single important scientific discovery was financed and supported by the Church. And, if you bring up that ONE instance of Galileo, that proves you're even more of an idiot.
@YesYou123333 I have not insulted you once this whole time and since you are picking up the business of doing it yourself, I'm going to stop the discussion here. You can have the last word, but it doesn't bother me. Take it easy, bro.
@YesYou123333 An example of the timing argument is used constantly by UFO and Roswell enthusiasts. Many claim, for example, that the increase in technology since the supposed crash is proof that it was an alien spacecraft. Think of all the technology we "invented" after Roswell! Is it just a coincidence!?!? Their problem is the same as yours; there's no evidence for these assertions. If you're arguing from ignorance, you may as well not even argue at all.
@Dataika If we were driving around in horse buggies and a UFO sighting was reported and a week later we were flying to the moon....yeah, I would say there might be something to it.
Dinesh D'Souza is nasty in an unintelligent way and seems to derail his arguments by stating that we would be a very different world without Christianity. Well yes, we would have been in a much better place!
Dinesh is serving such weak sauce for anyone who knows a bit about pro and contra of the arguments being constantly kicked around in religious discussion, that one can debunk him as he goes along. And that from an intelligent guy, makes him look like a fool.
This is the third time I have heard Dinesh speak. He is clearly intelligent and does well when debating from the losing end.
Some of his arguments would often be referred to as being simply wrong. Unfortunately, because he is no ignoramus I can only conclude he is being deliberately misleading and irresponsible.
Isn't it insane that all of Hitchen's debaters are part of an organized religion where they believe in the underlying texts yet none of them ever debate Hitchen's on those holy books? They all debate him as deists and disregard their own faiths beliefs. It seems they know their holy books have no reasonable defense so they drop the scripture act and argue the possibility of a creator in general.
@DGoose33 The reason for God is different than the reason for Christianity or Islam or Judiasm, etc etc. But new atheists themselves aren't arguing against any of the finer points of theology, so the debaters are meeting them where they're at. Essentially, the new atheists are making deist arguments against God and D'Souza and the like are responding to those arguments.
@DGoose33 Its not that they are choosing not too debate it, its that they are trying too stick to the topic of the debate, and the topic of all his debates have mostly been on the question "does god exist?" not the reliability of scripture. If you actually watch the debates pretty all of his opponents openly offer to debate him on the reliability of scripture (for example his debate with frank turek). And Hitchens never accepted that challenge.
> yet none of them ever debate Hitchen's on those holy books?
Look at the titles of the debates. All of them have to do with the existence of God or a higher being. The Bible is more geared to those who already share that belief.
@DGoose33 Wrong. The Bible has proven itself coherent with Archeological Discovery on more then one account. In fact it was correct before many archeological facts were even discovered. We know for a fact that Christ exists based upon non biblical sources. They put out what you describe as a "deist" perspective to show the reason of faith. Which I say is very reasonable indeed.
@agreatflood2121 Archaeological discovery establishes divinity? Not convincing at all; actually, that's flat out idiotic. I suppose by that logic you conclude that Zeus and Apollo existed because we have found ruins of the ancient Greek civilization, and Spiderman is surely a real character in history because New York City exists.
@agreatflood2121 I will cease ridiculing your position as soon as theists cite impartially-produced evidence and cogent argument that supports the core propositions of the faith. I won't wait up.
@uscjd2004 Bart Erhman is a skeptic of the biblical claims of divinity and yet he gives The New Testament its due credit. It does not get more impartial then that.
You would know that if you bothered to listen to the video I posted about him. Rather then doing that, you spat at me in outright rejection of the information, while simultaneously to give that type of argument.
Your self contradiction is telling, and not at all rational.
@agreatflood2121 The core propositions of monotheism are of a supernatural character. The mundane details of certain people and places are irrelevant. Ehrman's agnosticism is what's truly telling.
"The mundane details of certain people and places are irrelevant."
Your oversimplification of monotheism is fascinating, especially since it is false regarding Christianity. The details of Christ's Life, Teachings, Cruxifixction, and Resurrection are profoundly relevant.
And just as you speak of his agnosticism being telling, another especially telling feature is the way he contradicts an Atheist anxious to say that Jesus Christ did not exist.
@uscjd2004 Proof, No. Evidence, yes, and what qualifies for evidence in History is different from science, you can't test with observation.
The empty tomb. Not even Bart Erheman will deny the empty tomb. And the fact of the matter is that there is no adequate natural explanation why the tomb was empty.
"Give it up." You started this and you can end it, as long as you keep responding, I will
And the existence of Jesus is not up for debate. If you if believe men like Hitchens you believe a lie
@agreatflood2121 Hitchens doesn't all together disclaim the existence of an eccentric Galilean rabbi. He simply states that it is immaterial, because nothing in the Bible or elsewhere authenticates any miracles. These were calumnies constructed after the fact by followers with obvious motivations. Ehrman himself is a motivated observer because his entire profession collapses if the obvious is admitted -- that the metaphysical claims are extraordinary and therefore require evidence in kind.
@uscjd2004 You should read what Norman Finkelstein says about Hitchens whole career as a journalist. Its Fascinating.
Bart Ehrman, is amply justified in saying we have more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ then any other Historical Figure from the same time period, so anyone who says there is none, or it does not suffice, has explaining to do.
"These were calumnies constructed after the fact by followers with obvious motivations."
The audience is absolutely ridiculous in this debate. Hitch is right on the 'clap anything' point. In particular, when Dinesh claims that the Catholic Church never stated that non-Catholics cannot be saved (plz excuse the double negative), the crowd explodes in cheers. They are clearly unread, as there's clearly proof across multiple popes (Innocent III, Boniface VIII, etc) alienating anyone outside of the church from entering heaven.
Well, D'Souza is lauded up as being this big intellectual....and Hitchens rips him a new one! There are a number of people on youtube who could tear his arguments apart.
at 1:20,36 dinesh claims to watch the nature channel and does not see examples of solidarity... is this guy for real???? probably hasnt watch the nature channel once...
Most atheists and agnostics I know are not grateful to religion, especially christianity, for anything, so I do not know what guy is on. Thanks for making your delusions clear D'Souza.
What is the necessary extrapolation from the fact that so many people believed they had received the divine commandments from their God or Gods and knew the one true incontrovertible truth, which are widely regarded as nonsense now? Without referring to scientific theories which are now disregarded, as those are the examples of human errors.
Personally I think you either have to accept that we're too flawed to get a correct message, or there is no message
Lee Smolin might have said that it is like God was sitting in front of a table with many dials, but still Lee Smolin is an ATHEIST!!! I wonder why someone who said that is an atheist? Ah yeah, maybe it is because the emphasis should be on "it is LIKE", meaning it only looks like that, but it isn't like that!!!
You may argue as much as you like that something looks designed, you need to PROVE it before you can claim it IS designed!!! (HUGE difference)
Dinesh is so far from making a valid point that he would have to travel at the speed of light for decades before even approaching the same galaxy of a valid point.
His three faiths of science are hilariously stupid and his argument goes downhill from there. Just such incredible stupidity. It's so hard not to just skip through it. I would much rather just listen to Hitchens, but I'm genuinely curious and wanna hear any ridiculous crap he says.
"Catholic Thought" Wow, that's the biggest contradiction of terms I've heard in the past...well....30 or so years. Dinesh's arguments are, really really.....old, common, and debunked centuries ago. Seriously: "Stuff exists therefore I have a ghost that's BFFs wif jebus!" Really? What a deluded retard. ~28 minutes of blabbering about how god is real before Hitch gets his first swing for those interested in such data.
You have to work pretty hard to look like this much of an asshole standing next to Christopher Hitchens. Even worse, Hitchens ripped him a few new ones.
Even when Hitchens is an asshole, he's honest. Not like this pandering clown.
You're so wrong. You have to work very hard NOT to look like a worse asshole debating Hitch. Dinesh held out as well as anybody could hope to when talking crap to Hitch. It would have been very easy to come out looking far worse.
I did not assume you were using asshole as an insult. To look even that good against Hitch requires great intelligence and knowledge. Imagine Hitch against Nephy. Dinesh did comparatively well. When you said somebody has to work hard to look that bad against Hitch, Nephy, Geerup, and others would look far worse without even trying. At their best Dinesh would beat them.
Of course, Dinesh lost, because reality always beats fantasy. But he put up a good struggle.
@bdf2718 My point was that he acted like a jerk. Hitchens sometimes looks like a jerk, not because he uses trite debating tactics like this guy, but because he isn't all that concerned about the feelings of lying and/or deluded people. I'm sure Dinesh is smarter than he seems here, he'd pretty much have to be. I don't mean to belabor this, I just like to be clear.
I agree with you otherwise, though I have a hard time imagining Nephy or Geerup debating Hitch. Like a Ford Fiesta in the Indy 500.
well done dinesh!!
proximaism 2 weeks ago
nicely done D'Souza.... I'd say really good comeback...
royalj2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
D'Souza makes a great point @49:00. To add to this point; to believe Hitchens claim we have been here for 100,000 years, how does Hitchens explain the count of human population? If the population grew from 100,000,000 from the time of Christ to over 7 billion today how could it be possible for the population to grow from only 0 to 100,000,000 in 100,000 years? Hitchens argument has so many holes in it and D'Souza must of found it quite easy to demolish that one.
YesYou123333 6 months ago
@YesYou123333 Did you stick around to hear Hitchen's response to that "argument"? Furthermore, it doesn't answer anything and instead switches the focus of his point; where was Heaven during this time?
There are numerous reasons as to why our population is so much greater now than it was before... do you really need me to list them? Modern medicine, modern technology, etc... Population growth has increased much more dramatically in the last 100 years because of these advances.
Dataika 5 months ago
@Dataika Yes, but why then? Why at that time?
YesYou123333 5 months ago
@YesYou123333 I haven't studied it in depth (admittedly). Hitchens seemingly claims that it was the arrival of monotheism, but I have read of the Natufian Culture being one of the first to develop an agricultural community (leading to modern society). Maybe they were one of the first to abandon its hunter & gatherer ways? I don't know and neither do you; saying "GOD DID IT!" is not an answer at all. Like I said before, it's a red-herring and God of the Gaps fallacy wrapped up into one.
Dataika 5 months ago
@Dataika So, you think it was just a coincidence that at the exact same time a certain man is born who claims to be God and all of a sudden, out of nowhere, agricultural communities were formed, hunting and gathering stopped, the population began to explode, science and medicine progressed, etc? Why didn't this happen a 100 years before He was born? A 1000 years? 10,000 years? This human progression could of occurred at any time. All of these advancements occurred well after Christ was gone.
YesYou123333 5 months ago
@YesYou123333 Excuse me? The Natufian culture was around in 12 - 9,000 BC. You're arguing that Christ exploded technological advancement is almost laughable. What is your evidence for this? First of all, the Church was responsible for the repression of many scientific advancements during the Middle Ages. Second of all, if timing is your only argument then you are in trouble.
Dataika 5 months ago
@Dataika You're going to try and make the argument the world changed more between 9000 BC and the time of Christ then between the time of Christ and now!!! You're an idiot. As far as the Church and scientific discovery....who do you think financed all that research? Every single important scientific discovery was financed and supported by the Church. And, if you bring up that ONE instance of Galileo, that proves you're even more of an idiot.
YesYou123333 5 months ago
@YesYou123333 I have not insulted you once this whole time and since you are picking up the business of doing it yourself, I'm going to stop the discussion here. You can have the last word, but it doesn't bother me. Take it easy, bro.
Dataika 5 months ago
@YesYou123333 CERN is making some startling discoveries. None of their funding comes from religious organizations.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@YesYou123333 An example of the timing argument is used constantly by UFO and Roswell enthusiasts. Many claim, for example, that the increase in technology since the supposed crash is proof that it was an alien spacecraft. Think of all the technology we "invented" after Roswell! Is it just a coincidence!?!? Their problem is the same as yours; there's no evidence for these assertions. If you're arguing from ignorance, you may as well not even argue at all.
Dataika 5 months ago
@Dataika If we were driving around in horse buggies and a UFO sighting was reported and a week later we were flying to the moon....yeah, I would say there might be something to it.
YesYou123333 5 months ago
Dinesh D'Souza is nasty in an unintelligent way and seems to derail his arguments by stating that we would be a very different world without Christianity. Well yes, we would have been in a much better place!
moroney1 6 months ago
The Craig v Hitchens debate was much better
jc1daddy2 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
@youneekk No he wasn't. You guys failed.
ZuluFightrunner 2 weeks ago
49:14 Hitchens in the background: "Oh come on". Exactly what every rational human being would say!
doriamedina 8 months ago
Dinesh is serving such weak sauce for anyone who knows a bit about pro and contra of the arguments being constantly kicked around in religious discussion, that one can debunk him as he goes along. And that from an intelligent guy, makes him look like a fool.
Baerchenization 8 months ago
This was one of Dinshe's worst debates I've ever seen, and thats saying a whole hell of alot given his.. less than sterling track record.
Pervyable 8 months ago
This is great
iliveon 9 months ago
This is the third time I have heard Dinesh speak. He is clearly intelligent and does well when debating from the losing end.
Some of his arguments would often be referred to as being simply wrong. Unfortunately, because he is no ignoramus I can only conclude he is being deliberately misleading and irresponsible.
Leehamism 10 months ago 12
@Leehamism or he's right and you just don't want to admit it :)
TheHeshbon 6 months ago
@TheHeshbon From your point of view that is a possibility.
Leehamism 2 months ago
@Leehamism And insulting.
TheBiAtheist 2 months ago
Dinesh D´Souza is that not a tasteless kind of soup?
MrMaika77 10 months ago
Isn't it insane that all of Hitchen's debaters are part of an organized religion where they believe in the underlying texts yet none of them ever debate Hitchen's on those holy books? They all debate him as deists and disregard their own faiths beliefs. It seems they know their holy books have no reasonable defense so they drop the scripture act and argue the possibility of a creator in general.
DGoose33 11 months ago 27
@DGoose33 The reason for God is different than the reason for Christianity or Islam or Judiasm, etc etc. But new atheists themselves aren't arguing against any of the finer points of theology, so the debaters are meeting them where they're at. Essentially, the new atheists are making deist arguments against God and D'Souza and the like are responding to those arguments.
TheHeshbon 6 months ago
@DGoose33 Its not that they are choosing not too debate it, its that they are trying too stick to the topic of the debate, and the topic of all his debates have mostly been on the question "does god exist?" not the reliability of scripture. If you actually watch the debates pretty all of his opponents openly offer to debate him on the reliability of scripture (for example his debate with frank turek). And Hitchens never accepted that challenge.
midgetsrule93 2 months ago
@DGoose33
> yet none of them ever debate Hitchen's on those holy books?
Look at the titles of the debates. All of them have to do with the existence of God or a higher being. The Bible is more geared to those who already share that belief.
owensphil 1 month ago
@DGoose33 Wrong. The Bible has proven itself coherent with Archeological Discovery on more then one account. In fact it was correct before many archeological facts were even discovered. We know for a fact that Christ exists based upon non biblical sources. They put out what you describe as a "deist" perspective to show the reason of faith. Which I say is very reasonable indeed.
agreatflood2121 1 month ago
@agreatflood2121 Archaeological discovery establishes divinity? Not convincing at all; actually, that's flat out idiotic. I suppose by that logic you conclude that Zeus and Apollo existed because we have found ruins of the ancient Greek civilization, and Spiderman is surely a real character in history because New York City exists.
uscjd2004 4 days ago
@uscjd2004 "Archaeological discovery establishes divinity?" I would appreciate it if you did not put words in my mouth.
If you want me to talk the reliability of the Bible I will.
Let me show you what a skeptic says about the existence of Jesus Christ
"Atheist Refuted by Agnostic Historian (Bart Ehrman) on the Existence of Jesus."
/watch?v=u9CC7qNZkOE
"William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman (1 of 6)" please watch each one of them.
/watch?v=zANl-OcPnfI
agreatflood2121 4 days ago
@agreatflood2121 No, thanks. I'd hate to think that I'm the cause of your continued spewing of nonsense.
uscjd2004 4 days ago
@uscjd2004 I would appreciate it if you did not behave with mockery, sarcasm, and insult.
If you wish to call it nonsense and reject it out of hand, you must reject the facts put forward by modern historians.
agreatflood2121 4 days ago
@agreatflood2121 I will cease ridiculing your position as soon as theists cite impartially-produced evidence and cogent argument that supports the core propositions of the faith. I won't wait up.
uscjd2004 4 days ago
@uscjd2004 Bart Erhman is a skeptic of the biblical claims of divinity and yet he gives The New Testament its due credit. It does not get more impartial then that.
You would know that if you bothered to listen to the video I posted about him. Rather then doing that, you spat at me in outright rejection of the information, while simultaneously to give that type of argument.
Your self contradiction is telling, and not at all rational.
agreatflood2121 4 days ago
@agreatflood2121 The core propositions of monotheism are of a supernatural character. The mundane details of certain people and places are irrelevant. Ehrman's agnosticism is what's truly telling.
uscjd2004 4 days ago
@uscjd2004 Glad you decided to wait up for me.
"The mundane details of certain people and places are irrelevant."
Your oversimplification of monotheism is fascinating, especially since it is false regarding Christianity. The details of Christ's Life, Teachings, Cruxifixction, and Resurrection are profoundly relevant.
And just as you speak of his agnosticism being telling, another especially telling feature is the way he contradicts an Atheist anxious to say that Jesus Christ did not exist.
agreatflood2121 4 days ago
@agreatflood2121 There's no real evidence of a resurrection or the occurrence of any other miracle. Give it up.
There may well have been a deluded preacher roaming Galilee at that time. I don't care.
uscjd2004 4 days ago
@uscjd2004 Proof, No. Evidence, yes, and what qualifies for evidence in History is different from science, you can't test with observation.
The empty tomb. Not even Bart Erheman will deny the empty tomb. And the fact of the matter is that there is no adequate natural explanation why the tomb was empty.
"Give it up." You started this and you can end it, as long as you keep responding, I will
And the existence of Jesus is not up for debate. If you if believe men like Hitchens you believe a lie
agreatflood2121 4 days ago
Comment removed
uscjd2004 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@agreatflood2121 Hitchens doesn't all together disclaim the existence of an eccentric Galilean rabbi. He simply states that it is immaterial, because nothing in the Bible or elsewhere authenticates any miracles. These were calumnies constructed after the fact by followers with obvious motivations. Ehrman himself is a motivated observer because his entire profession collapses if the obvious is admitted -- that the metaphysical claims are extraordinary and therefore require evidence in kind.
uscjd2004 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uscjd2004 You should read what Norman Finkelstein says about Hitchens whole career as a journalist. Its Fascinating.
Bart Ehrman, is amply justified in saying we have more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ then any other Historical Figure from the same time period, so anyone who says there is none, or it does not suffice, has explaining to do.
"These were calumnies constructed after the fact by followers with obvious motivations."
What were they? Power? Fame? Wealth? Explain.
agreatflood2121 4 days ago
The audience is absolutely ridiculous in this debate. Hitch is right on the 'clap anything' point. In particular, when Dinesh claims that the Catholic Church never stated that non-Catholics cannot be saved (plz excuse the double negative), the crowd explodes in cheers. They are clearly unread, as there's clearly proof across multiple popes (Innocent III, Boniface VIII, etc) alienating anyone outside of the church from entering heaven.
adknerr 1 year ago
Well, D'Souza is lauded up as being this big intellectual....and Hitchens rips him a new one! There are a number of people on youtube who could tear his arguments apart.
EvilEuropean 1 year ago
at 1:20,36 dinesh claims to watch the nature channel and does not see examples of solidarity... is this guy for real???? probably hasnt watch the nature channel once...
amok52 1 year ago
the fundamental point is... dinesh is boring as hell...
amok52 1 year ago
26:55
Most atheists and agnostics I know are not grateful to religion, especially christianity, for anything, so I do not know what guy is on. Thanks for making your delusions clear D'Souza.
Kincajou 1 year ago
0:49:20
What a bizarre, ridiculous and idiotic way of thinking... wow.
We have just a few things left from the great Greek and Egyptian cultures of many thousands of "things" they created. What is his point even...?
knoose 1 year ago
I'd love to ask Dinesh this question:
What is the necessary extrapolation from the fact that so many people believed they had received the divine commandments from their God or Gods and knew the one true incontrovertible truth, which are widely regarded as nonsense now? Without referring to scientific theories which are now disregarded, as those are the examples of human errors.
Personally I think you either have to accept that we're too flawed to get a correct message, or there is no message
gamerunknown 1 year ago
that Dinesh-guy is such a slimy weasel.
DevaOscura 1 year ago
Lee Smolin might have said that it is like God was sitting in front of a table with many dials, but still Lee Smolin is an ATHEIST!!! I wonder why someone who said that is an atheist? Ah yeah, maybe it is because the emphasis should be on "it is LIKE", meaning it only looks like that, but it isn't like that!!!
You may argue as much as you like that something looks designed, you need to PROVE it before you can claim it IS designed!!! (HUGE difference)
fassstar 1 year ago
Dinesh is so far from making a valid point that he would have to travel at the speed of light for decades before even approaching the same galaxy of a valid point.
His three faiths of science are hilariously stupid and his argument goes downhill from there. Just such incredible stupidity. It's so hard not to just skip through it. I would much rather just listen to Hitchens, but I'm genuinely curious and wanna hear any ridiculous crap he says.
niginit 1 year ago
"Catholic Thought" Wow, that's the biggest contradiction of terms I've heard in the past...well....30 or so years. Dinesh's arguments are, really really.....old, common, and debunked centuries ago. Seriously: "Stuff exists therefore I have a ghost that's BFFs wif jebus!" Really? What a deluded retard. ~28 minutes of blabbering about how god is real before Hitch gets his first swing for those interested in such data.
LordSlag 1 year ago
@LordSlag How about "Military Intelligence"? :P
steffenml 1 year ago
You have to work pretty hard to look like this much of an asshole standing next to Christopher Hitchens. Even worse, Hitchens ripped him a few new ones.
Even when Hitchens is an asshole, he's honest. Not like this pandering clown.
This was fun to listen to, thanx.
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
@tctheunbeliever I was going to say the exact same things you've saved me the time thank you.
whysers 1 year ago
@tctheunbeliever
You're so wrong. You have to work very hard NOT to look like a worse asshole debating Hitch. Dinesh held out as well as anybody could hope to when talking crap to Hitch. It would have been very easy to come out looking far worse.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718 Well, I'm not using "asshole" necessarily as an insult. If you replaced "asshole" with "idiot", I'd agree with you.
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
@tctheunbeliever
I did not assume you were using asshole as an insult. To look even that good against Hitch requires great intelligence and knowledge. Imagine Hitch against Nephy. Dinesh did comparatively well. When you said somebody has to work hard to look that bad against Hitch, Nephy, Geerup, and others would look far worse without even trying. At their best Dinesh would beat them.
Of course, Dinesh lost, because reality always beats fantasy. But he put up a good struggle.
bdf2718 1 year ago
@bdf2718 My point was that he acted like a jerk. Hitchens sometimes looks like a jerk, not because he uses trite debating tactics like this guy, but because he isn't all that concerned about the feelings of lying and/or deluded people. I'm sure Dinesh is smarter than he seems here, he'd pretty much have to be. I don't mean to belabor this, I just like to be clear.
I agree with you otherwise, though I have a hard time imagining Nephy or Geerup debating Hitch. Like a Ford Fiesta in the Indy 500.
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
thanks for uploading this.
AEVautomatic 1 year ago