Why does Hitchens get such hero worship?
I recently watched a replay of a debate where hitchens gets demolished while in his typical drunkard stupor yet when I read the comments people were calling him a savant saying he won the debate and was a modern day great (though he could only create GCSE level arguments apparently ). I'm not a theist but i'd like someone to explain this to me.
Original post by Wrath121
which particular debate? and I cannot envisage Hitchens being on the receiving end of his own hand.
You do know that hitchens was terrible at forming concsise arguments and relied on on witticisms. You can look at almost any of his debates to find what you describe.
Original post by Dominic101
You do know that hitchens was terrible at forming concsise arguments and relied on on witticisms. You can look at almost any of his debates to find what you describe.
Give me the specific video which you are alluding to, where Hitchens supposedly gets 'demolished'.
Original post by Wrath121
Give me the specific video which you are alluding to, where Hitchens supposedly gets 'demolished'.
Look at Craig versus Hitchens.
Hitchens uses that wit in order to subtly draw attention to the nonsensical drivel spouted and advocated by his opponents (mainly in religious debates). As with other things, there are some stuff I don't necessarily agree with Hitchens, such as his standpoint on Iraq with his debate with Peter.
Original post by Wrath121
Hitchens uses that wit in order to subtly draw attention to the nonsensical drivel spouted and advocated by his opponents (mainly in religious debates). As with other things, there are some stuff I don't necessarily agree with Hitchens, such as his standpoint on Iraq with his debate with Peter.
Yes, I think that Christopher's stance on Iraq was naive. Peter is worse though.
Original post by Wrath121
Hitchens uses that wit in order to subtly draw attention to the nonsensical drivel spouted and advocated by his opponents (mainly in religious debates). As with other things, there are some stuff I don't necessarily agree with Hitchens, such as his standpoint on Iraq with his debate with Peter.
He almost always uses that when he can't find a sensible solution to the problem he is posed with. I do ask do you really think him a great debater?
Original post by Dominic101
He almost always uses that when he can't find a sensible solution to the problem he is posed with. I do ask do you really think him a great debater?
I think it is irrefutably true that Hitchens is a great orator and debater. I think his wit is one of his many fortes.
Original post by Dominic101
Look at Craig versus Hitchens.
I'll look into this debate later.
Original post by Dominic101
Look at Craig versus Hitchens.
Most serious people agree that Hitchens lost that debate, rather badly as well.
I think it's because Hitchens is such a great orator; he was incredibly witty, absolutely hilarious and 100% spoke his mind. I personally admire him, and I readily accept that he isn't the best philosopher out there by any means. He's a good writer, nevertheless.
Original post by Wrath121
Hitchens uses that wit in order to subtly draw attention to the nonsensical drivel spouted and advocated by his opponents (mainly in religious debates).
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Wrath121
I think it is irrefutably true that Hitchens is a great orator and debater. I think his wit is one of his many fortes.
This is the exact type of hero worship im talking about. Yes he did have a good way with words but he was not a good debater as often he couldn't find the flaws in his opponents claims.
Original post by Endless Blue
Most serious people agree that Hitchens lost that debate, rather badly as well.
I think it's because Hitchens is such a great orator; he was incredibly witty, absolutely hilarious and 100% spoke his mind. I personally admire him, and I readily accept that he isn't the best philosopher out there by any means. He's a good writer, nevertheless.
I think it's because Hitchens is such a great orator; he was incredibly witty, absolutely hilarious and 100% spoke his mind. I personally admire him, and I readily accept that he isn't the best philosopher out there by any means. He's a good writer, nevertheless.
I think what you say it quite true.
a) You already give him hero worship by calling him 'Hitchens' instead of his whole name.
b) You already give him hero worship by writing a topic about him.
c) There are at least 2 Hitchens who might be known by a decent number of people - Christoper and Peter.
Christopher is dead and in oblivion according to himself.
(Oblivion if God doesn't exist because there would not necessarily be an afterlife. Oblivion if God does exist because he didn't show God sufficient respect).
His whole life's work is only not in oblivion if people keep on referring to him.
Why should we not make someone who loved talking about oblivion so much be consigned to oblivion himself?
Why? Because he affected sufficient 'charm' and eloquence to make himself memorable to people. I feel bad even saying that this man might have had some charm. He never called me anything so what do I owe him? Nothing.
Would he be so known if he hadn't happened to be from the South of England with that kind of 'I feel your middle class existential pain' accent and that 'ooh- I smoke. Aren't I so daring? You're all politically correct yet you feel a primal interest in those old days of smoking don't you?'
No. If a Northerner of superior intellect, who happened to talk in tones more like Alan Bennett, died they'd be lucky to get a few mourners to their funeral. As indeed happened to C S Lewis- although he wasn't Northern but he was a believer in God in his later days.
Which in itself tends to support the idea that there is no God.
He is talked about because he was a Southerner, he was 'survivorist' enough to caress enough of the egos of enough people (academics and audiences) that he needed to keep on getting work and that's it. How awful- but of course his audiences are kind of even more awful for this decades long act of seduction in being taught about hypocrisies without being taught about what is best for everyone to replace them.
b) You already give him hero worship by writing a topic about him.
c) There are at least 2 Hitchens who might be known by a decent number of people - Christoper and Peter.
Christopher is dead and in oblivion according to himself.
(Oblivion if God doesn't exist because there would not necessarily be an afterlife. Oblivion if God does exist because he didn't show God sufficient respect).
His whole life's work is only not in oblivion if people keep on referring to him.
Why should we not make someone who loved talking about oblivion so much be consigned to oblivion himself?
Why? Because he affected sufficient 'charm' and eloquence to make himself memorable to people. I feel bad even saying that this man might have had some charm. He never called me anything so what do I owe him? Nothing.
Would he be so known if he hadn't happened to be from the South of England with that kind of 'I feel your middle class existential pain' accent and that 'ooh- I smoke. Aren't I so daring? You're all politically correct yet you feel a primal interest in those old days of smoking don't you?'
No. If a Northerner of superior intellect, who happened to talk in tones more like Alan Bennett, died they'd be lucky to get a few mourners to their funeral. As indeed happened to C S Lewis- although he wasn't Northern but he was a believer in God in his later days.
Which in itself tends to support the idea that there is no God.
He is talked about because he was a Southerner, he was 'survivorist' enough to caress enough of the egos of enough people (academics and audiences) that he needed to keep on getting work and that's it. How awful- but of course his audiences are kind of even more awful for this decades long act of seduction in being taught about hypocrisies without being taught about what is best for everyone to replace them.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- How to stop being jealous of siblings?
- Am I Muslim if I am choosing not to worship God?
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies A Paper 1 8062/11 - 16 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Can you mark my GCSE English Language answer please?
- can i be a Christian and spiritual at the same time?
- OCR Classical Civilisation - Greek Religion A-Level
- What do compare Dorian Gray with? (A2 Eng Lit)
- What does it mean that the PM is hindu?
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Immortality
- Anyone else struggle with which denomination church to go to?
- Introduction to Buddhism?
- Gcse classical civilisation ocr
- Retro TV?
- Why am I drifting from Islam?
- Percy Jackson discussion thread!
- prediction classics 2024 and question on classics A level
- Macduff presenetd a hero - Macbeth essay help ?
- Hijab?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
