FULL Christopher Hitchens vs John Haldane at Oxford
Top Comments
All Comments (19)
-
A good debater has to be interesting as well as knowledgeable. Haldane is incredibly boring. He's almost impossible to listen to.
-
The difference between them is that Hitchens' repertoire is limited mainly to rhetorical tricks, mostly emotional appeals, whereas Haldane employs reasoned arguments. Hitchens is unable to answer these and grows increasingly uncomfortable as the evening wears on. Watch his body language at the end as he, literally, shifts in his seat.
-
^_^
-
@rkyeun thank you
-
Outstanding job by Hitchens.
-
I like the part where Hitchens is asking where are the clapping for Haldane is coming from. I laughed out loud.
-
Haldane is an appallingly boring apologist. I watched Hitchens getting more and more bored.
Haldane has no argument worth listening to. I can understand Dionysus' AArrrggg. Hahahahaha.
-
Brilliant segue and introduction by using the Lincoln assassination to demonstrate the absurdity of taking ancient oral history on face value.
However Hitchens is incorrect in saying that Seward made the "angels/ages" comment. In fact it's thought that Sect of War Stanton said this while Seward was nearly dying of stabbing wounds from another "racist" co-conspirator.
All this of course supports Hitchen's point about the reliability of oral history. Ages-->Angels; Stanton-->Seward.
-
That should be a Hitchslap!
-
lesson one for any undergraduate at university = avoid the christian union like your life depends on it
Shortcut to Hitchens:
6:26
rkyeun 3 months ago 21
The difference between a theologian and a philosopher is this :
Both are put into a dark room,blindfolded to look for a black cat that IT IS NOT there!.
The philosopher can not find it.
The theologian not only finds it, but he can tell that the cat just ate a white mouse , who just ate a piece of provolone cheese.
AArrrggg ;p( Is no wonder why I can't stand them -- Fucking bullshitters !!!.
Dionysus5252 3 months ago 14