There is an old saying when somebody is severely outmatched in a contest; “that person is playing checkers while their opponent is playing chess”. Essentially it means that somebody is doing such a bad job of holding their own, that it’s almost sad to see how pathetic one side is doing.
This is certainly the case with a large number of people who have tried to match wits with Christopher Hitchens over the years. While he is the one of “The Four Horsemen” of atheism that I began following (i.e. reading their work) last, I have to say it was my loss to not look into Hitch earlier. With the sad reality of his situation, it seems he comes to mind more and more. His razor sharp wit, his incredible recollection of such disparate realms of knowledge, his amazing ability to turn a phrase. These things and more will never be replaced, and we can only enjoy them while we are still able.
However on to the topic at hand, this debate between Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. The thing I notice most about this debate is that Hitchens seems to be debating the existence of god while Shmuley seems to be debating which book you should buy, Hitchens or his own. It’s as if they are having two very different conversations, and despite not joining in one, Hitchens still manages to win them both.
Full version of the Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Debate at New York’s 92nd Street Y.
Every program and presentation at the 92nd Street Y is made possible by charitable donations from individuals like you. To continue our activities in all media, we hope you consider making a donation below. Thank you.
Matthieu Guibert
Sarah Hippolitus
Rodibidably
Luis Reinoso
Brian Gregory
Thinking Critically 
Pingback: Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Debate | Rodibidably
Yeah, that one was pretty painful to watch.
I saw Hitchens debate Frank Turek, and it was also as if they were each in a completely different debate. Only difference was that Turek was trying to offer scientific evidence for god, all of which could be easily countered with, ya know, science. Unfortunately, Hitch was not addressing them, though he did bang it home when he pointed out that Turek’s vaguely theist arguments, even if true, did not imply that Christianity was true.
I wonder what the purpose of such debates are in the end? Is it just to get people thinking? Because I suspect that very few people change their minds based on such events.
I don’t know what Hitch thinks the purpose is for him, but for me, I enjoy debating and watching (or listening) to good debates. For me it’s a chance to learn and a chance to force myself to be able to defend my position on virtually any topic. Anybody can SAY they are against guns or for gay marriage or believe that the judeo-christian god is a myth; but until you’ve actually researched the topic it’s difficult to put into words a good argument to defend that stance.
I would expect hope that no matter what side of the topic you’re on in a debate like this, that you’d go away thinking more about not only your own “side”, but the arguments raised by the other side as well (if for no other reason than to at least understand why they do or do not hold up to scrutiny).
Good reasons 🙂 I’m a horrible debater, so I’d never get much out of trying. But listening certainly does make you think.
You don’t have to be a Hitchens level debater (i.e. the best, or at least one of the best debaters in the world) to learn from debating. As long as on your own side of the debate you stick to facts as you know them and don’t allow yourself to make logical fallacies, and you’re willing to say “I don’t know” when appropriate, I think it’s a good opportunity to learn.
That said, it helps to enjoy debating to really get in to it. If you don’t, typically you’ll get frustrated with the responses of others, as they attempt to avoid answering direct questions and continue to throw logical fallacies your direction.
Pingback: Thinking Critically – 2010 in Review | Thinking Critically