Hitchens sucks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2014, 12:01 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2014 12:06 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: Hitchens sucks
(09-02-2014 11:58 AM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  I believe the debate was "Is Atheism true"

Now, lets all talk about how STUPID that topic is. Atheism is not a claim, it is an "I don't know so therefore I don't believe due to lack of evidence". WHAT ELSE ARE WE TRYING TO PROVE?!?

No..the debate's topic is "Does God exist"

Which, as I said, Craig doesn't talk about in his opening 20 minutes, but runs off with his usual stuff. Hence allowing him to cram a massive amount of aspersions in. Not a lot which actually answer the debate's premise.

And Criag's rebuttal makes me want to retroactively beat the b@stard senseless. After redefining the terms, he then makes out as if Mister Hitchensis silly enough to agree with said changed topic. Excrete-able.

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
09-02-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: Hitchens sucks
(09-02-2014 11:38 AM)donotwant Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 11:26 AM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  I disagree with the assessment of the OP.

How about providing reasons.

That was mostly all I had to say. I think your opinion is wrong. You'll not agree with me on that, because you already agree with your opinion, that's why you stated it. As such, you will not agree with mine because it is opposed to yours. Just stating that I disagree with your assessment.

As to why? I've watched this video before, and many others by Craig and others by Hitchens. And from that I've drawn the opposite conclusion. I think Hitchens is quite astute, and tends to cut through Craig's arguments with ease, clarity, insight, and reason.

Craig tends to spend an exorbitant amount of time spewing nonsensical notions and concepts. He redefines word definitions and meanings as he sees fits, ignores blatant reality, reason, and logic. And repeatedly fails to abandon poor, battered and warn arguments that fail to refute what they are intended to refute, for ones that...well...don't do any of the things I'll just mentioned his arguments fail at.

In short, I think Craig has a poor argument, that sounds fanciful as he says it, but in the end signifies nothing. Where as Hitchens has a solid argument which he states robustly and soundly. And Hitchens "wins" the debate, in as much as one can be said to "win" debates.

So yeah, I disagree with the OP.

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
09-02-2014, 12:08 PM
RE: Hitchens sucks
(09-02-2014 10:48 AM)donotwant Wrote:  I watched debate of Craig vs Hitchens and hitchens got owned because of lack of ability to form arguments which sound good and logical attacks. Dawkins suffers from same thing. Atheists should train their rhetoric skills. Because until they do people like Craig will win simply because they know how to talk properly.
Also more confidence would be good thing to have.

I don't know about that but I do know Craig is full of shit. Did you ever try to argue with a liar? If so you know how anybody might feel debating Craig....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 12:11 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2014 12:19 PM by IndianAtheist.)
RE: Hitchens sucks
LOL craig is nothing but a loser apologist he's not even comparable to the legendary hitch.

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like IndianAtheist's post
09-02-2014, 12:26 PM
RE: Hitchens sucks
(09-02-2014 10:48 AM)donotwant Wrote:  I watched debate of Craig vs Hitchens and hitchens got owned because of lack of ability to form arguments which sound good and logical attacks. Dawkins suffers from same thing. Atheists should train their rhetoric skills. Because until they do people like Craig will win simply because they know how to talk properly.
Also more confidence would be good thing to have.

What utter nonsense. Hitchens was a master at the things you are criticising him for. Is english your first language? If so then I understand your confusion as his use of vocabulary isn't easily understood at times, even for the English. This is because his vocabulary is so large that he often uses words and phrases that the average man would have to have the use of a dictionary to comprehend.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like joben1's post
09-02-2014, 12:28 PM
RE: Hitchens sucks
(09-02-2014 12:26 PM)joben1 Wrote:  
(09-02-2014 10:48 AM)donotwant Wrote:  I watched debate of Craig vs Hitchens and hitchens got owned because of lack of ability to form arguments which sound good and logical attacks. Dawkins suffers from same thing. Atheists should train their rhetoric skills. Because until they do people like Craig will win simply because they know how to talk properly.
Also more confidence would be good thing to have.

What utter nonsense. Hitchens was a master at the things you are criticising him for. Is english your first language? If so then I understand your confusion as his use of vocabulary isn't easily understood at times, even for the English. This is because his vocabulary is so large that he often uses words and phrases that the average man would have to have the use of a dictionary to comprehend.

I do understand fully what he says but I don't think his style is the best in those kinds of debates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 12:29 PM
RE: Hitchens sucks
(09-02-2014 12:28 PM)donotwant Wrote:  I do understand fully what he says but I don't think his style is the best in those kinds of debates.

Um...well, your opinion is all well and good..but I like many before me, will have to disagree with your position.

Very much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 12:31 PM
RE: Hitchens sucks
Hitch was on his book tour.

He said what he wanted to say and didn't fall into WLC's traps.

WLC is now a laughing stock except to his dwindling stock of die-hard fans. Hitch has been deified.

Nuff said.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 10 users Like DLJ's post
10-02-2014, 02:06 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 06:53 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Hitchens sucks
(09-02-2014 10:48 AM)donotwant Wrote:  I watched debate of Craig vs Hitchens and hitchens got owned because of lack of ability to form arguments which sound good and logical attacks. Dawkins suffers from same thing. Atheists should train their rhetoric skills. Because until they do people like Craig will win simply because they know how to talk properly.
Also more confidence would be good thing to have.

The gish-gallop is not an impressive debate technique or good rhetoric, it's a cavalcade of bullshit. Both Hitchens and Harris refused to sink to that level and are probably the best debates to watch because they are prime examples of how not to sucumb to Craig's bullshit tactics; while Craig flounder as he redefines words, pretends he's not a complete scientific ignoramus, uses patently flawed logic (debunking his shit is practically an internet sport), and quote mines people. This is especially evident if you watch the Q&A after the Harris debate; once you get Craig off his rote talking points and interrupt his shtick, he's like a fish out of water. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
10-02-2014, 02:52 AM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2014 03:07 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Hitchens sucks
Hitchen's had it easy in debates, facts, logic, common sense and truth.
His opponents were forced to make shit up on the spot, be careful one lie didn't contradict another WLC was much better at debates considering he had to deal with all that.

Hitchen's power was a natural authority tone, and witty anecdotes backed up with very high IQ/knowledge.
Not only did he not suffer the slightest of fools, he fucked up their shit.

9:40 "If they gave him an enema, he could have been buried in a matchbox" on Jerry Falwell's death, HAHAHAHAHHAAH, my favourite Hitchslap.




Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like sporehux's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: