“I really wish D'Souza would educate himself in rational arguments and critical thinking.

A little disappointing that Hitchens didn't tear him in half, instead adopting a defensive/passive approach. Especially in the face of so many ad hominem arguments directed at him.

Frustratingly biased and poorly structured 'debate'. ”

“as much as I dislike D'Souza, he is the most able debater I have seen go up against Hitchens or any of the others on our team yet.

One more point I'd like to make, we atheist are sometimes at a disadvantage when debating Christian who tell us how Christianity ended all kinds barbaric traditions that had existed all over the world: human sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery etc... (as if these were prime examples of humanist thinking and not often functions of religous believes themselves - sometimes even the earlier forms of Christianity)

Even if we accepted this claim at face value - and I don't, but let's assum it for the sake of the argument - an atheist should not feel the necessity to praise or endorse Christianity. We have to remember that all the Christian is saying is that his religion is better than that of some prehistoric stone-age culture. If that's the standard you want to measure yourself on...

Christianity is but one of a huge number of religions that have existed in the history of mankind mankind. History, however, is nothing but the long march of cultural evolution of humanity. That some religions/traditions, in this case Christianity, contained values and practices that proved superior in terms of social cohesion and civilizational advance to those of other religions, like those of the Celts or some African tribes does not mean that we have to embrace Christianity - no we should embrace that which has proven even more beneficial, in terms of explaining to us the truth about the world and in its effects for how we live together in society: a naturalistic worldview that leaves all those irrational bronze-age myths behind.

Just to give you an example: I have no problem stating that globally speaking the tradition of Christianity as it exists nowadays in the world is one I prefer over Islam. That doesn't make me a Christian - on the contrary: I strongly dislike many parts of the so-called Judeo-Christian morality and there countless exapamples of deeply troubling developments among Christian fundamentalists.
However, the tooth of time has simply done its work on Christianity than it has on Islam.

So when people like D'Souza say that Christianity is better than the cult of headshrinkers on the island of Tonga I am charitable enough to grant him that. I would still insist on pointing out that my worlview, which doesn't include the possiblity of people rising from their graves or the earth stopping it's orbit around the sun if god happens to wish it is one I very much prefer over a tradition based on the belief in a 2000-year old middle-eastern sky-god. ”

“I just slogged through all of the videos. Unfortunately, the "thrashing" we expected did not occur, and it is not entirely Hitchens' fault. D'Souza is a master of utilizing the debate format to his advantage. He holds most of his strawman arguments for his rebuttals, and due to the Q&A format, Hitchens is unable to refute. Perfect hucksterism to the nth degree. The part where it is Christopher's fault is that I think he's not used to debating with someone as articulate and finely tuned as D'Souza. D'Souza is an entirely different animal than what Hitchens is used to debating on MSNBC or Fox News. Christopher's standard boiler plate just does not 'win' with a guy like this and with an audience as ignorant as this. I think this experience will be good for Christopher and will challenge him to jump the rhetorical rut and compel him towards a more finely tuned and at the same time broader based argument for future debates - one that is flexible enough to tangle with any kid of opponent, format, and audience. ”

“Hitchen's didn't modulate his message to the make-up of his audience. We all instinctively do this in everyday conversation, but it's much more difficult in a formal debate, so I'm not entirely criticizing Christopher on this. His standard arguments and tactics usually carry weight on a talking head "news analysis" program on FOX or CNN or in other debates with different opponents, formats, and audiences. I think in this debate Hitchens was hamstrung not just by the format and D'Souza's hucksterism, but also by his inability to tune his message to the situation at hand. I don't think I'm being overly harsh to Christopher for saying that. I think he himself might have a "transcendent" experience because of this and change his rhetoric and tactics regarding the atheist vs. theist argument so that he may be more flexible in dealing with different arguments and settings. At least I hope so. I don't want to see a liar like D'Souza "beat" another atheist again. Having said that, I think if this debate had been sponsored by the Royal Society or Google or some other more "intellectually friendly" venue, Hitchens would definitely have had the upper hand, especially in the hackneyed "Q&A" session. What Christopher needed was an audience that wouldn't let D'Souza's lies and distortions off the hook, because the format didn't allow Hitchens to do so in an effective manner. ”

“D'Souza is the most challenging debater we have thus far encountered. He is extremely intelligent and in possession of superior verbal abilities. He wins many arguments because he is able to assemble a vast array of "factoids" that appear to back his claims. These factoids often have the effect of overwhelming his opponents; since his opponents likely cannot remember all the inaccuracies, and they do not have the time to refute them, he often comes out on top. This may be mendacious, but it also may be that he is so biased that, as Hitchens says, D'Souza actually believes what he's saying.

Often we see D'Souza using a sophisticated "god of the gaps" ideology. For example, his argument that science does not know everything [or cannot prove universal, unwavering laws], and therefore miracles are possible. Ken Miller uses this line of reasoning when he asserts that because there is inherent indeterminacy at the quantum level [and it is impossible to create tools that would eliminate the indeterminacy], this is the space that god can occupy, where the laws of the universe can seemingly be broken.

I think many debaters fail to educate the public [and their opponents] that scientists don't claim to have all the answers and that's ok. We're working on it, as Dawkins says. Most of us admit our ignorance when we don't know something. We must strive to fill in the gaps with facts, not fairies. ”