In the Conversation with William Lane Craig and Bishop Barron thread I had mentioned that I was not fond of Hitchens' debates because at times "he substituted substance with flair." Macarthur challenged me to provide something specific.
A couple of months later I responded with the following:
That was a month ago. I was hoping that Macarthur would comment, but he might have overlooked that thread, so I wanted to restate my thoughts here to see if I might grab his attention.
A couple of months later I responded with the following:
Quote:
So I've spent the last month or so immersing myself in everything Hitchens. Read his memoir, watched several debates, reread parts of God is not Great, etc. I love his oratory style. I didn't intend to watch as much Hitchens as I have, but I seriously love his oratory style. I've watched stuff going back to the 80s with Bill Buckley, all the way to his last appearance in Houston with Dawkins. But I stand by my original criticism of him: there are times he substituted substance with flair. You asked for a specific example.
I think in the debate with Frank Turek on whether or not God exists, if Hitchens won he won it on charisma and wit rather than on the content of his words. Don't get me wrong, I think many of Turek's arguments fell flat, but overall on the content itself I think he did a better job than Hitchens did. Here is an excerpt from that debate that I think exemplifies what I'm talking about:
Hitchens adroitly dodges around Turek's question and in some ways overpowers him with his oratory skills, but he doesn't actually address the point. Personally, I would have loved a real answer. This particular subject came up over and over again in that debate, and every time Hitchens dodged it similarly. In my opinion there were some other points he did this with as well. And, from what I've seen, these aren't exceptions to the rule either. This is his debating style quite often. And while I'm extremely impressed with him as an orator, I cannot say I think he wins all of his debates, because at times the content is substituted with flair.
That was a month ago. I was hoping that Macarthur would comment, but he might have overlooked that thread, so I wanted to restate my thoughts here to see if I might grab his attention.