Preliminary results posted on the Munk Debates website from an audience poll suggest Mr. Hitchens won the debate. Read More (theglobeandmail.com)
Clip from the debate
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11843586
Watch the debate for $2.99 at
http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/Religion
43 comments:
According to the numbers, it was a draw. Blair's side (pro-religion) went from 22 to 32 percent, while Hitch (the atheist side) went from 57 to 68 percent. Fairly predictable nonsense, really. Always happens at these sorts of "debates". The Toronto crowd was mostly secular going in, as was to be expected. As for the 21 percent of 'undecideds' going in, well, that's a pretty suspect bunch, if you ask me. Funny how they pretty much split down the middle after the show. How perfectly useless.
Well these debates are just PR exercises to sell books, what do you expect?
You guys are kind of cynical, aren't you? I thought it was a great debate. I also thought Hitch came out on top.
Hitch was at his best in this one. Blair kept babbling about the same thing and trying to defend himself on points that even Hitch hadn't had the chance to attack him yet. Basically, the way I understood it, Blair's strategy was to essentially concede to Hitch on all grounds but still stick by the naive notion of bridging world religions into one.. how childishly lame that expectation is. Blair missed the point that religions are not in the business of acceding ground, bridging religious divide is an utopian notion destined to fail.
Decent Impaler.
Mr. Blair really wasn't prepared. He recycled the same argument every time he spoke: some people do bad things in the name of religion and some people do good things. He simply couldn't stray from this line. How small Hitch made this well-spoken statesman look.
"It was a draw"
Mark G, bless him. He is dearly, unimpeachably Dim. There is no simplicity that is too simple for this genius of the discombobulate to misconstrue.
I didn't watch the debate. I've lost all interest in such crap. I'd almost rather die than listen to Hitch repeat the 'celestial North Korea' line one more time, while everyone pretends to laugh in the background.
That's why I wrote, "According to the numbers, it was a draw." Which my charming stalker above didn't even try to contradict.
Dim, your star shines, once again, ever so dimly.
And please, let's do desist from accusations of stalking while your blog stalks and posts pictures of Hitchens' daughter. All I do, Dim, is call you Dim when you say dim things, Dim, on this blog. If you think that is stalking, well, Dim, you must be dim, Dim.
Hay this is great I am so pleased to get access to this debate:
http://www.youtube.com/user/hitchensblairdebate#p/u/7/PoKlXqDIR_A
Of course I will wathc the deabte before I decide who is the winner. I'll be the judge of that!
ROFLMAO!!
And oh yeah how funny that Mark G who runs a website dedicated to stalking Hitchens complains of being stalked. Whenever ther is any news story about Hitchens or a website that mentions Hitchens Mark G turns up to denonce Hitchens and HE complains about stalking!
Irony thy name is Dim!
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!
Chumps, there's a big difference between what I do: use my real name and openly criticize a celebrity in public forums versus what you do: anonymously follow me (a non-celebrity) around and attack me. The latter is much closer to the definition of stalking.
"do desist" - what the fuck is your problem, man? Were you home-schooled or something?
"Chumps, there's a big difference between what I do: use my real name and openly criticize a celebrity in public forums versus what you do: anonymously follow me (a non-celebrity) around and attack me. The latter is much closer to the definition of stalking."
Dim Distinctions.
So your blog buddies who use nicknames like FGFM and post pictures of Hitchens children (non-celebrities) are stalkers? Is that what your saying? Maybe go and rethink that one, eh Chump!
I want to keep the 'anyone can comment' option available, and that includes 'anonymous'. Nobody expects real names with comments but why not just come up with something (asdf.. or whatever) to separate commentators. I really don't like replying to 'anonymous' myself.
Indeed the Cappleman!
Mr Grueter,
Why you did assign to us "Decline and Fall" by Mr Edoard Gibbon as described 20ieth century British satire? It is Rome, and Christian civilization which killed it. Is it metaforic, as in what Bush Christians do to Iraq? I say you are rong then, and am happy you been dismissed to the internet.
Kurdish student,
I most certainly did not assign "Decline and Fall" by Mr. Edward Gibbon. I assigned "Decline and Fall" by Mr. Evelyn Waugh. Observe the difference.
Why do the organisers of these debates insist on these overlong and overblown introductions? I think it's entirely about ego.
Why do the organisers of these debates insist on these overlong and overblown introductions?
I don't know, Steve H. What do you think?
I think it's entirely about ego.
Ahhh? Well, what was the point of your question then?
Louie, if you are going to forge my name, at least have the common Decency to link to Hitch Watch or my Twitter feed!
Hay By the way Mark G why don't you get back to my points about Jalal Talabani on the Slate article?
Has it ever occured to you that maybe some people go looking for people they want to read on the Internet (i.e not you!!) and then look at the comments boxes. Strangley when I look at something written by Hitchens (i.e something I want to read) I almost invariably find some dumbass, ignorant commment written by some dumbass ignorant knob-jockey and almost invariably the words "Mark G" appaear alongside it.
Now, gien that all these things are written on public forums on which anyone is allowed to comment who but a completely egotistcal knob would think the person laughing at them was a stalker?
Over to you, Dim!
HJ, there's a difference between saying "I think it's" and "I know it's".
"HJ, there's a difference between saying "I think it's" and "I know it's"."
Then you could say, "I think the organisers of these debates debates insist on overblown introductions because of ego!" (anything more is overlong, and overblown!) Still less you could say nothing, but perhaps your ego insists!
Bwahahahahahahha!
"debates debates"
Spot the deliberate mistake!
HJ, look, Steve H was asking a rhetorical question; one that I asked myself nanoseconds before I answered it.
So, while I agree that maybe he could have merely stated his objection to their 20 fucking minute introduction; there really is no harm in phrasing it in a question and answer format. I think you are merely being petty and silly-ass.
I officially hate all the people Hitchens is surrounded by during all of these events; especially that obtuse little twit that made El Hitch visibly wince by announcing his cancer with a little too much blase aplomb in my opinion. I watch for Hitch and Hitch alone-- all others get the fucking mute button.
BTW: I just read 'Where Men Find Glory" and despite the noble intentions and razor sharp logic/politics of Hitchens and the secular left opposition in Iraq (who supported the invasion) -- the US military is populated by a bunch of psychopathic incompetent Morlocks with malice in their black hearts. One cannot escape this fact-- our military is staffed by stupid and mendacious men at every level and Pat Tillman should never have even joined their rotten ranks. Notice HJ I never asked a question here...
Mr Greuter,
I accept your apolgy for your mistake. Thank you. You told us your teaching was new and your long speech about no oppression by borgeoius hierarchies and how deceitful new conservatives quote poetry is famous on campus. Therefore your assignment Gibbon as described as satire is satire? But it is this other book now. I'm confused not you then, but you did the confusing then.
Mark G is not a stalker, because he uses his real name. It is well known that many counts of stalking have been thrown out of court because the gentleman or lady in question had the acumen and audacity to turn up in the front yard at three in the morning sporting nothing but a pair of y-fronts and a real name. If George Eliot or Mark Twain or Bono even deigned to reply to Mark G they would, by very definition, be stalking him.
"It was a draw".
Yes, it boasted similar numbers to Obama's landslide draw in the presidential elections.
I remain unconvinced that Mark G isn't a fiction; it is difficult to believe that a man with such a superadbundance of stupidity can survive so unchastened in the world.
Responding to dimwitted posts about Hitchens on a Hitchens messageboard is stalking. Posting and perusing pictures of Hitchens' daughter on a blog called Hitchens WATCH after another long late-night's succesful session isn't, apparently. The genius of Dim.
And why does Dim go to and enjoy such outrageous lengths? Because he deeply loathes his position on the Iraq war. Which, incidently, Dim similarly supported until a few short years ago.
You should really consider a pseudonym, Mark G.
FGFM, what are you blathering about? I see you're gripped in another fit of Internet paranoia and suspicion, like a more malicious and racist Internet version of Inspector Clouseau.
The ol' Watch has not gone dark since the "post-a-Hitch-chick-pic" festival, but it has been much less active. Nothing at all from Mark G in fact, whose bile has been turning up elsewhere with more frequency. Perhaps there has been a chastening.
At least give credit where it's due, Decents. I trolled for, found, and posted the pictures of Hitchens daughter. Mark G just cheered me on.
Winners, loosers...I do not see this 'debate' whereby one looses and one wins...religion cannot be debated due to the fact that each statement in defense of religion cannot be proved; therefore, statements taken from context clearly show/state exactly what is going on around us. We must look at and listen to what is happening around us in order to make change or to understand what it is because it deeply affects us.
Religion is clearly just another form of entertainment; therefore, this cannot be considered a debate.
Thank you...
Oh look, Steve and 1stLt.L.Diablo let me apologize for my remarks.
I think the point is that it isn't too suprising that a person hosting an event wants to get a little bit of that limelight and it's really quite reasonable for the host to have a few minutes to waffle on.
If you actually went to the events you probably wouldn't mind as it would be an evening out and the host's blabbering might raise the tension a little before the big event.
Now if you watch about twenty events on You Tube your experience will probably be quite different and the blabbering people would probably become very tedious very quickly. But don't worry, you have an advantage. You can simply skip ahead to the debate itsefl.
My advice is also to skip TOny Blair, Tariq Ramadan, Dembski, that bearded pastor can't remember his name, Rabbi Shmeuley and all the rest of those boring tendentious religious types who try to special plead their way through the whole debates after essentially conceding everything of substance at the beginning.
So, sorry for my rudeness. But really, there's not much to complain about. We're lucky that we can see so many debates so easily. Only a few years ago we were never spoilt like this so who cares about a blabbery old host at the beginning?
What the Cappleforge!
Perhaps there has been a chastening.
Decent has a theory!
Decent has a theory!
Dim has a theory. His theory is this:
If Hitchens gets over sixty percent of the vote and Tony Blare gets about thrity percent then it is a draw!
Ha! Bwahaha!
Tony Blare [sic] gets about thrity [sic] percent
Dim is dim.
Dim is dim.
Tell us something we don't know.
OK. When I'm alone at night, cooking for one, I pretend I'm Julian Assange.
Indeed.
Tell us something we don't know.
The English language.
FGFM blurts in ungrammatical fragments for a very good reason: he's sub-literate.
He's good at trolling the internet for pictures of young girls though. That, and cooking for one.
Decent has some theories!
This has to be the most childish response I've ever seen to anything. Good luck with it catching on, though.
D-uh...decent has a theory..er...
Post a Comment