If only Buckley knew his so-called conservative movement was hot on the road to Limbaugh, Fox, the Tea Party, Q-Anon, religious rule, and Trump. Completely selling out conservatism to radical corporatism-and REALLY hating people who can still manage to think.
Hitchens was an incredible tour de force, his superior intellect, devastating knowledge and inescapable insight totally outclassed his opponents in that exchange.
Hitchens while criticizing sections of Tyrell's book: "I'm glad I didn't write it myself", and "I seem to have read your book more carefully than you have". Priceless....
“Terminological inexactitude is not what you meant to say, is it?” “It’s a euphemism for what you want to say.” “Are you aware of the provenance of the term?” Winston Churchill used the phrase in parliament in order to comply with an order from the speaker to withdraw an unparliamentary accusation- in that case calling someone a liar. Hitch knew so much about history.
If you were attentive enough to listen to the whole thing and catch a few brief moments of argument and interpret them that way then yes. If not then its probably your biases speaking for you
+Jeremy Foster ...yes, that seems pretty accurate. Buckley and Hitchens seems to have been the most engaged in the central discourse on liberalism - even if they find themselves at opposite viewpoints, and were at times irritated ...at best distracted by Tyrrell's often failed interjections. Emmett's womanly, wistley drawl reminds me of a young Margot Kidder ...or Jodie Foster. It think both William and Emmett were slightly attracted to Christopher's rugged, unapologetic whit and criticism.
Part of what makes this discussion so rewarding is the dance of respect and understanding that Hitchens and Buckley undertake. As for the insufferable troll on the end, well, three’s a crowd.
Another amazing example of Christopher Hitchen’s intellect and wit. How wonderful it would have been to have his thoughts and insights over the last 12 years. He’s still the best debater I have seen.
Isn't it always the conservative in the room, whose commentary gets interrupted, downplayed and otherwise disrespected in every debate situation? The only exceptions are Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, whose wisdom and intellect are beyond reproach by most Liberals. Thank GOD there is still some common sense in the world to lean on, because the world would be in flames (already) had it been left to Liberals to usher in their Socialist and Communist agendas.
He's embarrassed when Tyrell starts to want to associate himself with Buckley as "being on the same side", he visibily starts squirming and distancing himself from him, because Hitchens is winning the argument.
Hahaha so true. I wish I had Buckley’s accent, one of an intellectual in a constant state of careless apathy, always confident in his arguments and finding his opponents annoying in their lack of articulation, both in thought as well as in speech.
Only when "ARTFUL DISHEVELMENT" is a euphemistic term for hideous. Fascinating to hear these guys talk about when to tell a woman she's ugly when it's Buckley who's UUUGLYY!
"I'll let the viewers be the judge of whether I sound as if I believe any of that. I haven't got time." brutal lol. One thing you can always say about Hitchens, he really had a way with a sharp turn of phrase
Hitchens could quietly, calmly, cut his opponent off at the knees. Devastating!!! They never knew what hit them! Buckley was dishonest and reminds me of an asp by the way he licks his lips. Never half as smart as he thought the was.
Yeah on top of all that, the host constantly looks like he is hanging over the back of his seat, the opposition to Hitchens sounds like a high pitch female. But very interesting to hear the debates from the time of the past.
But it's not "astonishing" how ideological most of these comments are. Leftists gush over Hitchens, while right-wingers are gaga about the other two windbags.
3:00 It's amazing how Buckley can sit in a chair like that without falling out of it. He's nearly horizontal. They should have provided him with a chaise lounge...
He's just more pompous, that's all. An extreme Liberal, or so it seems. Hitchens was the only one calling for "laughs" out of the three, do you notice that? That's because Liberals generally try to put someone down when the others don't agree with their ideology, even though it's full of gaping holes.
"Terminological inexactitude is not what you meant to say, is it?" How is this line never included in Hitchens' best cuts ever? This is genius-level trash talk. His poise is incomparable. Final observation: Conservatives defending Nixon. The GOP has never really changed.
What's impressive here is that Buckley lets his guests speak and remains silent for many minutes at a time. No television show would feature this kind of edit or production anymore.
@@jackgray3267 In critics of Buckley, the one reference that's always recruited in proving the point is his hour long debate with Chompsky. He remains as one of the most prolific intellectuals to ever live. It will require more than a miniscule example to take him down.
Buckley: "I am often accused of an inordinate reliance on unusual words, and desire to defend myself against the insinuation that I write as I do simply to prove that I have returned recently from the bowels of a dictionary with a fish in my mouth."
The coup of 1953, Mossedegh was set to nationalize the oil industry in Iran, and the UK wasn't having it. This wasn't about democracy, it was about oil. Because he took those steps, and was set to give that wealth back to the Iranian people, take the control from the US and UK oil companies (British Petroleum) the CIA helped overthrow Mossedegh. When the Shah got in to power after the coup, he create SAVAK, the deadly Iranian spy agency and they went and murdered and assassinated as many of the Shahs opponents over the next 20 years of abuse. Eventually the Iranian students rose up in the Iranian hostage crisis and took over the US embassy for 444 days until the Shah was deposed. This took Iran from a democratically elected prime minister, to a dictator and then eventually when the Shah was deposed, Iran went the way of religious fanaticism, to the way it is today with the Ayatollah. We turned a democratically elected Iran in to the religious government it is today. The way some people put this coup in the light of a fight for democracy, when it was all about oil... is just not consistent with history.
@@abum4595 Iran was not the same place it is today in 1953, it was not a theocracy and the clerics did not have the influence and control they have now. Mossadegh had massive support with the people. The shah was nearly deposed after he tried to fire him. If the western powers had not intervened, the middle east would likely look very different today
No need to replace him. He came and went. In the overall scope of things he is insignificant. To some, at most, he was just a fly temporarily in their ointment. For most everyone else he was simply entertainment.
@@michaels1416 *Hitler was entirely backed by the Catholic Church. The fascist movement of the 20th century was the Catholic right-wing. Stalin was a new God, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated. Your total ignorance is typical of that of someone that attempts to slander, slur and defame the atheist movement. You're a clueless buffoon.*
@@MattSingh1 Chamberlain wrote a peace treaty. The Catholic Church wrote a 1937 Encyclcal, Mit brennender Sorge, read in all Chruches in German, condemning the mad man.
Tony Learner as a complete lightweight he has trouble rallying much else..if you look...both Hitch and Buckley smirk when he talks because what he says is so often stupid.
I couldn't resist looking back at Tyrell's book, and it seems that he takes delight in using Fratboy wisecracks as a substitute for analysis and even, god help us, research. I am glad that we have heard so little from him over the years, particularly when juxtaposing his impact with that of Hitchens.
This is an excellent clear thinking piece. Count the number of personal attacks Tyrell makes on Hitchens, in proportion to really knowing how out of his depth he was.
@@rumination2399 And of course you have a special ability to know that he’s fuming with resentment. Perhaps you’re describing yourself rather than him. It follows that you would have a greater comprehension of that. But from your comment it might just follow that self knowledge is not your strong suit.
@@misterhope5241 bro c'mon. Body language is truer than words. People can't hide what they are. Are you trying to seem even more like what I said than he was? You didn't make a single point of substance - it was all just insult and emotion pretending to be insight. Who you trying to bluff man, I'm pretty much the only one likely to attend to your animus
Sad that Americans (the only nation I can speak for) would rather watch the Daily Show or those sexy FOX news anchors than listen to well educated, unique, and opinionated intellectuals challenge each other's beliefs with well thought out arguments. Occasionally C-SPAN will have something worth watching when it comes to current events, but not often.
Amen. Buckley and Hitchens represent both sides of the political fence with impressive calm and intellectual ammo. Tyrrell, hawking the book, is no idiot, but IS a bit of a lightweight in this kind of company in terms of his poise. He'd be at home on many of today's less impressive, more opinion driven news shows.
It was very accurate on the part of the uploader to leave that third character's name out of the title. And as an aside, no has ever, nor will anyone ever again be able to fuck someone up so thoroughly with words as Christopher could and often did.
It’s almost impossible to have a political talk show like this today. There’s too much money to make in advertising to give educated people a time to talk. This is why podcasts are so popular. It requires an intellectual effort for the audience and patience to actually listen.
MetrazolElectricity I disagree with a lot of modern feminist rhetoric, but him Tyrell saying the Women's Christian Temperance League's power showed that women were powerful is a horrible argument. They couldn't even vote in national elections at the time. How was he wrong about feminism? They were undoubtably a repressed group in US society for centuries. They may not be now, but that's the point. It's because of the past feminist waves that so many seem so ridiculous now.
Lavache Beadsman Terrell was a darling of the Republican Right in the early 80's thru 90's. He was primarily a columnist, for Buckley's magazine, I believe.
Lavache Beadsman I feel like with Buckley and Hitch, we're seeing the dignity of debate between an old-school conservative and an old-school liberal. And every time Tyrell pipes up, it's like seeing a foreshadowing of the noisy neo-conservative tone to come.
I love how Hitchens slowly but surely makes the better argument and thus impresses the shit out of Buckley to the point where Buckley all but dismisses Tyrell (as a the idealogue).
That's called a systematic oppression of dissenting views by Liberals, to dominate and control the narrative. There is an assumption here that Tyrell was "not as intelligent" as the other two, but that's not necessarily true. He just wasn't as pompous, therefore, got less respect in the audience's eyes. Because that's what the Left does when confronted with facts. Evade and avoid and put the onus on the other person to be more "witty" and therefore, convincing. I watched several instances in this video where Hitchens resorted to character assassinations when confronted with facts (different opinions, actually) from Tyrell. Ideologies, on their face, are just that, ideas. Does not make them right, even though the speaker wants to convince you that because they can spew more book verses, that what they're saying is more valid. Horsehockey. You were just reading the wrong books on Liberalism vs. common sense. No magic there.
Viewers note: there is but one analysis that is pertinent here. Mr Hitchens was invited back to Firing Line, frequently. Mr Tyrell vanished into obscurity. Conclusion: Mr Buckley appreciated Hitchens style and respected him for it. High praise indeed.
sitting in the middle of two people that want to discredit and demonize you. I wish I had his mental abilities and fortitude. Hitchens really is IMO a singularly amazing mind.
Simply remind yourself that there's no need to let emotions get in the way of discussions - it actually gives you a serious leg up in any discussion, as it allows you to organise your thoughts for a superior argument :)
It is hilarious that anyone would dare to accuse Hitchens of not understanding a situation (25.34) when he was one of the most erudite, informed human beings we have had the privilege to hear. Seeing him in action is a tonic. He is sorely missed.
Amen. I miss his sharp wit & even sharper intellect. Amazing to watch how cool under fire he was in the face of a pointless blowhard who did little but hurl insults & barely addressed facts on merit.
"That's like saying if your aunt had cojones she would be your uncle", Hitchens is my hero. I am just glad that after all his books there is still all this type footage for me to enjoy!
@@Billsbob You are right, but he was very entertaining for me at that age, and a stepping stone in my discovery of other intellectuals. He was the most important person in many people's journey into critical thinking. That being said I feel that once people get this far they are most likely already moving in the right direction of intellectual consumption, and so hold my critical opinion save those who are obviously misinterpreting it.
Tyrrell is hillarious. Every time I think some of the modern conservatives are a little on the deep end, I listen to Tyrrell and realize it has been happening for a long time. I consider William F/ Buckley Jr a hero of mine and started watching him in high school. I did not agree with Mr. Buckley on many things. Tyrrell is not fit for debates on Firing Line because he is like a lot of current conservatives accusing, arrogant, disrupting and accusatory. He takes out of context just about everything that Christopher says or things. Mr. Buckley at least has a honest debate on ideas, and that is why I love him. Interesting that Tyrrell calls everyone who does not think like him a phanatic. Hitchens is cool and competent as is Buckley and are highly enjoyable. Tyrrell is the precursor to FOX news.
+Maurice Jones Seriously, this guy Tyrrell's views on feminism at the time sound like the typical reactionary bullshit against it by white men who couldn't handle the fact that's women's roles in society were changing because women fought like hell to make it change. Typical narrow-minded view of feminism by a white privileged dude who didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Hitchens obviously had a better grasp on it---I actually liked Hitchens back in the day before he become a supporter of right-wing views and became an arrogant dick. Interesting to see him while he was still a liberal,though.
+rainmaker690 Great comment. I'd just say one thing, though: Hitchens wasn't a liberal; he was a socialist. But yeah, it's a shame how he drifted towards the right later in life.
+Maurice Jones Excellent comment and I feel the exact same way that you do about it. I found the exchange between Buckley and Hitchens fascinating and Tyrell's input to be incredibly annoying.
Tyrrell was like the little brother invited to the adults table. See i'm grown see? no, shut up and learn something. it's easy to see Hitch and Buckley going off to dinner for further discussion without the kid around.
When you can see the half-cool, half-frightening smile and the light in Buckley’s eyes, you know he rates the person he’s speaking to. He never looks anything but bored by his own, supposed, chum.
How embarrassing for Tyrell. When your a right winger and Buckley is constantly correcting and disagreeing with you, you are showing a lack of acumen, understanding and in his case, obnoxiousness. Its funny how he tries to warm up to "William" Buckley by calling him "Bill" and reminding (apparently mistakenly ) "Poor" Christopher that he is outnumbered.
Tyrell accuses Hitchens of being an ideologue while being completely oblivious to the fact that his argument shows his own ideological bias. This man can't argue to save his life.
I agree with you about Tyrell but Hitchens was in fact an ideologue at his time. He said in the beginning that he was a socialist and he said later in life that he used to be a Marxist.
The 'ideology' of the Right is not an ideology is the way that the Left's is. The Right believes, broadly speaking, that people must be left alone to do as they wish unless specifically told they can't do something; the Left believes that people must be told they can't do things unless specifically told that they can. The Left has a set of rules which it doesn't like to be questioned, and Left-wing regimes routinely suppress the voices of truth-seekers. The Right simply doesn't do this. The Left's heart is in the right place, but it quickly forgets about its heart when it gets into power. The 'ideology' of the Right is closer to a 'philosophy'. Hence the reason that every 20 year-old angry student can trot out a list of those Left-wing desiderata without having to draw breath.
That's simply not true.. The Right pushes for schools to educate kids in creationism in favor of evolution and wants to promote abstinence in the favor of sex education. Additionally, the Right wants to completely ban abortion, which obstructs upon individual liberties. The Right also generally supports agricultural subsidies and helping out the oil industry and that is not leaving people alone alone at all, as it's our money going into those subsidiaries. By definition, the Left questions the status quo and challenges ideals while the Right seeks to maintain that social hierarchy and status quo.
@@genepoole1771 On the contrary, his confidence was ill-founded: he knew nothing of true Christianity, and preferred to continue to know nothing so that he could shoot down straw men.
@@lawrence1318 I think what you mean by "knew nothing of true christianity" is that he did not have faith, but by definition this gap qualified rather than disqualified him from dismantling the doctrinal contradictions and moral corruption of major world religions.
@@genepoole1771 No. I actually mean he knew nothing of true Christianity. Commensurately, faith in Christianity consists of an absolute knowing: it is not faith in the sense in which you think of it. So it is not hope, or superstition, or reasoning based on any sort of probability, but an absolute knowing. Hitchens wasn't aware of this, as neither are most people. But that was not the main problem. The main problem is that Hitchens wasn't interested in finding out what true Christianity is. So he simply chose to continue to shoot down straw men to keep his pay cheque coming in.
Holy crap I had this video tabbed the whole time, thinking that Hitchens was arguing with an extremely right wing woman and tabbed back in to find it's a curly haired man in a suit.
I'm afraid Mr Buckley doesn't impress me at all but I'm not American . Gore Vidal really did impress me and I only heard him speaking without even knowing his name .
Even though I hold the opposite politics, I always admired Buckley for his place as the foremost conservative intellectual and for his Firing Line programs. Gore Vidal was his equal on the left. Both gentlemen had cause to think highly of themselves.
My favorite take down of this whole thing is when Hicthens said "Excuse me sir, but I've done a lot of work to get into America, you were just born here."
@@pjdiver3 Indeed, we have lost ground in public discourse; nobody on the panel, not even the infantile Tyrrell, would have made such a gross flight of fancy as you just made with a straight face.
Tyrrell: "I contend that men and women never had to be polticised on the grounds of sex or gender" Buckley: "Well surely they had to be politicsed to give them the vote" Tyrrell: "Weeeell... I'm talking about the present"
I think that comment was apt in the context of that part of the discussion. The author of the book was revealing that his view of women was directly related to the women he associated with.
17:24 HOLY CRAP Hitchens slapped the crap out of Mr No name with "I don't feel pain in my ribs,I know a rapier when I see one and I know I haven't been pronged" then "I grant you that a women would have to be happy go lucky to associate with you"
That Tyrrell clown is unbelievable obnoxious when he acts all chummy and patronizing . But that is quite alright, since he was wrong about just about everything and is a nobody today and Hitchens was right and is a legend.
+Collin Pruett - Christopher Hitchens surely in later years adjusted (probably more than once) his resume', I'll give ya that. But a neo-con, w/due respect to your opine, I don't think I'd go that far. Especially taking into account he began as somewhat of a Socialist (by his own admission). An real unique individual. RIP ="Mr. Christopher Hitchens"
+joe shmo I think I've watched all his debates, and all his performances on question-answer/panel shows. I don't think it's an overstatement to say that he steamrolled everyone. The only debate I can think of that, perhaps, wasn't completely one-sided was his religious debate with Haldane. Haldane's arguments were so steeped in formal academia that Hitchens had a hard time attacking him. However, Haldane had the same problem with Hitchens.
glory days of Hitchens. understated, perfect dismantling of facetious arguments. always think of him when i read "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"
I find it amusing to observe this Emmett Tyrrell harlequin genuinely thinks he's winning this debate and has the upper hand and is clueless that Hitchens and even Buckley are treating him like an annoying gnat worth swatting at.
+Tom Jones Hardly. Buckley and Tyrrell essentially are in agreement they simply have a different way of stating it. The fact you don't understand that proves you are a liberal.
Mark Johnson Okay. Since you don't like "harlequin", which of the following adjectives do you prefer? ...buffoon, joker, fool, jester, clown, pantaloon, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, imbecile, cretin, dullard, simpleton, moron, clod... Please alert and I'll edit the original post.
+tinote I actually watched this when it was originally aired. I was in high school back then and this was the first time I had ever seen Hitch. I was a Reagan supporter and I remember being absolutely amazed (and annoyed) at how Hitch was able to completely destroy all of Tyrrell's arguments. I've since changed my mind about Reagan and now I'm really sad when I reflect on how Hitch would eventually become a supporter of the NeoCons.
I take it you're referring to Emmett Tyrell, and yes he does look like McD. However while Tyrell is certainly a " 'tard" of some description, he is not a liberal. He was (and remains) the editor of the American Spectator, which as a publication could not be said to be liberal by any stretch- unless of course you categorize anything even slightly to the left of Genghis Khan as liberal. There's nothing in his statements that would be out of place in a Tea Party pamphlet today, except of course he's more well-spoken. As conservative commentators go, Tyrell is certainly a lightweight compared to Buckley himself (or even to Hitchens' own brother, Peter, who is masterful), and therefore his presence in this discussion was entirely superfluous.
Did you just call that guy a Liberal? Da Faq? Is that how far the right has become that you think of him as a Liberal? HA! The only Liberal on that panel has Hitchens. He was a Republican at death but was once a Socialist/Liberal. The Iraq war turned him Republican. But Tyrell was a Republican. HA. Its like saying Regan is a Liberal.
***** Well said, except that Hitchens didn't become a Republican. He did take a Neocon stance on the war against Islamists - - or as he would have said, Theocratic Fascism. On all other matters he remained on the Left.
Wow. While I disagreed with Buckley, he was a brilliant, thoughtful person. Watching him try & save Tyrrell from the skinning Hitchens gives him is fascinating. The saddest thing about watching this is only one of these men is still alive. And it's the wrong one.
+Rock 07 I don't know what you mean by 'atheist morals' but monotheists believe Hitch should burn in hell for eternity, is that view in any way comparable and not morally abhorrent?
+Rock 07 i highly doubt Dan Cole legitimately wants him dead and i think you know he doesn't mean it literally. not to mention he never said he wanted him dead for his beliefs he said its sad that hitchens is dead and he isn't.
Hitchens always plays the ball. All of his opponents always end up playing the man. A sign of weakness on their behalf. RIP good Sir. you truly slayed them all.
At least they still HAVE debate in Britain; we have NO debate in America, unfortunately, thanks to the woke virus that's infected liberalism. It's a pretty ironic situation, given the fact that America is the ONLY country in the world which guarantees free speech as a right.
@@benedictdonald4338 Oh - you mean the way republicans have whined about stolen elections for 20 years, and delayed the transfer of power for 2 months in 2004 by filing lawsuits, but then have the democrat front runner arrested for doing what they always do? Oops…Wait…stop…reverse that…
Thanks for the upload, a real joy to hear and see a younger Hitchens, especially in conversation with one of the most formidable debaters extant at the time, Buckley.
LOL Hitchen's quick, snappy comebacks to Tyrrell's juvenile digs were classic. Makes Tyrrell look like a bigger clown than he already is. I think Tyrrell likely cried under his pillow that night after such a humiliation.
@Ken Nuppenau Give credit to whom the credit is really due: the right-wing sugar daddies like Scaife, who shelled out the $ to keep Tyrell's barely-read and foundering rag afloat in the 90s
darthsadic Whenever some younger relatives come to visit Tyrell, he shows them this vid and says "See the guy in the blue suit sitting next to Hitchens and Buckley? That's me!"
Part of the required training to becoming a political hack, it would seem: Proper posture and vocal inflections combined with a complete declension [or abortion] of integrity, of terms [which Hitchens referred to as "elasticity of the definition" (13:16)], and of historic context/reference.
darthsadic You have to remember that this was during the Reagan years when the right wing was proclaiming its victories over the democratic party. It smells of hubris when viewed in retrospective
darthsadic Hitchens discusses and analyzes ideas, while blue jacket spends all his time slagging Hitchens for being an "ideolog". Blue jacket is a total light weight compared to the other two.
I didn't know Norm MacDonald was on Firing Line.
Brilliant, mate. Brilliant.
i was gonna say this
You know who else was on Firing Line? That's right, you guessed it, Frank Stallone
he sounds like his voice is sped up
Haha!
Mr Buckley looks like he is fighting somewhere around 6 g's of gravity in this particular moment
😂
Such a shame we don't have shows like this anymore.
We don’t have an educated, informed and knowledgeable society…Americans are really low IQ people
We do but not enough. People just prefer to scream and virtue signal on social media
If only Buckley knew his so-called conservative movement was hot on the road to Limbaugh, Fox, the Tea Party, Q-Anon, religious rule, and Trump. Completely selling out conservatism to radical corporatism-and REALLY hating people who can still manage to think.
@Edward Hassan
Many Podcasts are long form discussions similar to this.
I know! We need more shitfaced drunk hosts mumbling garbage politics like Buckley!!! What a dumb drunk that man was lmao!!!!!
Hitchens was an incredible tour de force, his superior intellect, devastating knowledge and inescapable insight totally outclassed his opponents in that exchange.
Tyrrell yes, Bill no.
Hitchens while criticizing sections of Tyrell's book: "I'm glad I didn't write it myself", and "I seem to have read your book more carefully than you have". Priceless....
😁
17:53 "I'm quite happy to grant you that a woman would have to happy go lucky to associate with you." Pure gold
ZING!
The opening of this is AWESOME. Audience members instructed to stare sideways at the camera
“Terminological inexactitude is not what you meant to say, is it?”
“It’s a euphemism for what you want to say.”
“Are you aware of the provenance of the term?”
Winston Churchill used the phrase in parliament in order to comply with an order from the speaker to withdraw an unparliamentary accusation- in that case calling someone a liar.
Hitch knew so much about history.
And you as well, apparently. Nice eye.
You get a real feeling that Buckley ends up realizing, "shit, I should have just had Hitch on the show" somewhere in this discussion.
If you were attentive enough to listen to the whole thing and catch a few brief moments of argument and interpret them that way then yes. If not then its probably your biases speaking for you
+Joe Cash The conversation was mostly between Buckley and Hitchens. Tyrrell was only there to repeat what he said in his book
+Jeremy Foster ...yes, that seems pretty accurate. Buckley and Hitchens seems to have been the most engaged in the central discourse on liberalism - even if they find themselves at opposite viewpoints, and were at times irritated ...at best distracted by Tyrrell's often failed interjections.
Emmett's womanly, wistley drawl reminds me of a young Margot Kidder ...or Jodie Foster. It think both William and Emmett were slightly attracted to Christopher's rugged, unapologetic whit and criticism.
Yeah, Hitch and Buck would have been a much more interesting conversation. *****
+Inaccessible Cardinal True.42:45-42:51
Buckley's voice is the Ambien of its time.
Perfectly put.
Such a slimeball.
Part of what makes this discussion so rewarding is the dance of respect and understanding that Hitchens and Buckley undertake. As for the insufferable troll on the end, well, three’s a crowd.
Christopher is brilliant.
As always.
Perfect description.
Buckley is insufferable as well but for different reason.
Interesting part is that everything the guy on the far right is saying has come true.
@@fnono33 is it just coincidence that he’s seated there? On the far-right?!
Another amazing example of Christopher Hitchen’s intellect and wit. How wonderful it would have been to have his thoughts and insights over the last 12 years. He’s still the best debater I have seen.
do you tempt digital fate?
It's hilarious how Buckley treats Tyrell with such disdain after a while.
Isn't it always the conservative in the room, whose commentary gets interrupted, downplayed and otherwise disrespected in every debate situation? The only exceptions are Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, whose wisdom and intellect are beyond reproach by most Liberals. Thank GOD there is still some common sense in the world to lean on, because the world would be in flames (already) had it been left to Liberals to usher in their Socialist and Communist agendas.
He's embarrassed when Tyrell starts to want to associate himself with Buckley as "being on the same side", he visibily starts squirming and distancing himself from him, because Hitchens is winning the argument.
Tyrell loses right from the start by refusing to speak with a British or Mid-Atlantic accent, thereby nullifying his argument.
netjunkie9 lol
Very true. You just can't compete with that type of oration.
I thought there was a woman in the debate before checking the video. The voice betrays him.
Hahaha so true. I wish I had Buckley’s accent, one of an intellectual in a constant state of careless apathy, always confident in his arguments and finding his opponents annoying in their lack of articulation, both in thought as well as in speech.
haha, that was funny netjunkie9
William F Buckley Jr is a STYLE ICON.
He is the embodiment of ARTFUL DISHEVELMENT.
Only when "ARTFUL DISHEVELMENT" is a euphemistic term for hideous. Fascinating to hear these guys talk about when to tell a woman she's ugly when it's Buckley who's UUUGLYY!
"I'll let the viewers be the judge of whether I sound as if I believe any of that. I haven't got time." brutal lol. One thing you can always say about Hitchens, he really had a way with a sharp turn of phrase
Hitchens was always smarter than any of us.
Hitchens could quietly, calmly, cut his opponent off at the knees. Devastating!!!
They never knew what hit them! Buckley was dishonest and reminds me of an asp by the way he licks his lips. Never half as smart as he thought the was.
@@BluesInSeattle Hitchens was an idiot.
Norm Macdonald used to have a really high voice.
OMG I was thinking the same thing! LOL
Everyone staring directly at the camera at the beginning was slightly unsettling .
true. and when host smiles he looks like joker. something is very wrong with his face
Yeah on top of all that, the host constantly looks like he is hanging over the back of his seat, the opposition to Hitchens sounds like a high pitch female. But very interesting to hear the debates from the time of the past.
nfal445 He probably had to pee.
I caught that too, and thought it was the strangest thing.
Lord Spacey Christopher if only you knew the power of the dark.... I mean republican side.
Even young, the man had more class, humility and intellectual honesty than ANY other speaker he faces.
He is an unashamed imperial supremacist with a soothing voice. What are you people smoking?
@@toast2610 70 substances known to cause cancer baby
@@MIKE-TYTHON of the brain
He was much better young than old.
No he was even wiser when he was older
"I know there was a joke somewhere, but I must have missed it."
Hitchens was the absolute best.
He’s so young! This is the earliest video I have seen of him - just as brilliant back then. Tremendous loss to die so young.
@7:32 "There was an attempt to utilize agencies of the state as a private politcal police force." Like what The Garland Archipelago is doing now.
@@fastinbulvis2223 cfc CFG ghhghhhghhhhhhghhhhhhhhhhh hahahaha ffxzph Go p G Paul p go hhPcygPpppfFgdhd
@@fastinbulvis2223 G G dg G G G f yPhyp
Of the 2 he turned out to be the one wrong about everything though. Smugness is an act
Astonishing how relevant this discussion is today. Hitchens is brilliant.
But it's not "astonishing" how ideological most of these comments are. Leftists gush over Hitchens, while right-wingers are gaga about the other two windbags.
I love and miss him and am revisting all his wonderful intelligence.
3:00
It's amazing how Buckley can sit in a chair like that without falling out of it. He's nearly horizontal. They should have provided him with a chaise lounge...
That made me laugh - thank you
And made me laugh too!
A true LOL moment :)
With the laid back chair posture, Buckley is projecting nonchalant intellectual superiority, “listen and learn”.
No one is saying he isn't.
Tyrrell is introduced as the funniest political essayist to come along in years, but Hitchens gets all the laughs.
Maybe funny for offering us inadvertent humor with his climbing into Buckley's nether orifice.
@@deanronson6331 He climbed well.
He's just more pompous, that's all. An extreme Liberal, or so it seems. Hitchens was the only one calling for "laughs" out of the three, do you notice that? That's because Liberals generally try to put someone down when the others don't agree with their ideology, even though it's full of gaping holes.
@@JamesMoore-un3cu did you not detect any attempts to "put HItchens down" from Tyrell?
@@JamesMoore-un3cu Hitchens was not a “liberal”, but professed himself here to be a socialist. These are not the same thing.
"Terminological inexactitude is not what you meant to say, is it?"
How is this line never included in Hitchens' best cuts ever?
This is genius-level trash talk.
His poise is incomparable.
Final observation: Conservatives defending Nixon. The GOP has never really changed.
What's impressive here is that Buckley lets his guests speak and remains silent for many minutes at a time. No television show would feature this kind of edit or production anymore.
First time I've seen a show or debate with Buckley, where he doesn't interrupt all the time.
He never let Noam Chomsky speak because Buckley was a PUSSSSSSSSSSYYYYYYYYYY!!!
@@jackgray3267 In critics of Buckley, the one reference that's always recruited in proving the point is his hour long debate with Chompsky. He remains as one of the most prolific intellectuals to ever live. It will require more than a miniscule example to take him down.
@@grottphd9090 I noticed that Buckley never invited Chomsky back on his show after getting trounched like he did lol
That's a better indictment than before. Not enough to paint his career black, but a better try.
Buckley: "I am often accused of an inordinate reliance on unusual words, and desire to defend myself against the insinuation that I write as I do simply to prove that I have returned recently from the bowels of a dictionary with a fish in my mouth."
spot on!
44:26
Hitches come back with chattle slavery was beautiful
I'm sure I'm not the only person who misses a man he never met in person
The coup of 1953, Mossedegh was set to nationalize the oil industry in Iran, and the UK wasn't having it. This wasn't about democracy, it was about oil. Because he took those steps, and was set to give that wealth back to the Iranian people, take the control from the US and UK oil companies (British Petroleum) the CIA helped overthrow Mossedegh. When the Shah got in to power after the coup, he create SAVAK, the deadly Iranian spy agency and they went and murdered and assassinated as many of the Shahs opponents over the next 20 years of abuse.
Eventually the Iranian students rose up in the Iranian hostage crisis and took over the US embassy for 444 days until the Shah was deposed. This took Iran from a democratically elected prime minister, to a dictator and then eventually when the Shah was deposed, Iran went the way of religious fanaticism, to the way it is today with the Ayatollah. We turned a democratically elected Iran in to the religious government it is today.
The way some people put this coup in the light of a fight for democracy, when it was all about oil... is just not consistent with history.
So well said
I don't think the religious leader would have tolerated Mossadegh for very long
@@abum4595 Iran was not the same place it is today in 1953, it was not a theocracy and the clerics did not have the influence and control they have now. Mossadegh had massive support with the people. The shah was nearly deposed after he tried to fire him. If the western powers had not intervened, the middle east would likely look very different today
Mabrook. Well said.
@@christco120
One can only imagine.
Hitchens never fails to astound me with his unwavering cool and absolute brilliance. Irreplaceable, in my view.
No need to replace him.
He came and went.
In the overall scope of things he is insignificant.
To some, at most, he was just a fly temporarily in their ointment.
For most everyone else he was simply entertainment.
I agree wholeheartedly. He is something to behold.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot also astounded the world with their "unwavering cool and absolute brilliance", and irreplaceable.......
@@michaels1416 *Hitler was entirely backed by the Catholic Church. The fascist movement of the 20th century was the Catholic right-wing. Stalin was a new God, as Bertrand Russell demonstrated. Your total ignorance is typical of that of someone that attempts to slander, slur and defame the atheist movement. You're a clueless buffoon.*
@@MattSingh1
Chamberlain wrote a peace treaty.
The Catholic Church wrote a 1937 Encyclcal, Mit brennender Sorge, read in all Chruches in German, condemning the mad man.
The amount of ad hominem from the guy in blue is amazing. He doesn't debate hitchens on a single point.
Kirk, you said it well ... I noticed it big time ... the blue suited arrogant prick was personally insulting to Christopher.
Tony Learner as a complete lightweight he has trouble rallying much else..if you look...both Hitch and Buckley smirk when he talks because what he says is so often stupid.
cityzenjane2 I didn't notice that. haha
I couldn't resist looking back at Tyrell's book, and it seems that he takes delight in using Fratboy wisecracks as a substitute for analysis and even, god help us, research. I am glad that we have heard so little from him over the years, particularly when juxtaposing his impact with that of Hitchens.
How little the right has changed
Tyrell looks every bit as a condescending dick in here.
This is an excellent clear thinking piece. Count the number of personal attacks Tyrell makes on Hitchens, in proportion to really knowing how out of his depth he was.
He’s hilariously foppish. He addressed the camera more than anyone. Lots of fake smiles pretending he’s not fuming with resentment.
@@rumination2399 And of course you have a special ability to know that he’s fuming with resentment. Perhaps you’re describing yourself rather than him. It follows that you would have a greater comprehension of that. But from your comment it might just follow that self knowledge is not your strong suit.
@@misterhope5241 bro c'mon. Body language is truer than words. People can't hide what they are. Are you trying to seem even more like what I said than he was? You didn't make a single point of substance - it was all just insult and emotion pretending to be insight. Who you trying to bluff man, I'm pretty much the only one likely to attend to your animus
Do we even have columnists who can shoot off history like this today? I can't imagine many of New York Times's darlings being this sharp in a debate.
You're right. Regardless of any of these 3 guys political slant they are a rare breed today. Hitchens and Buckley are certainly missing these days.
Sad that Americans (the only nation I can speak for) would rather watch the Daily Show or those sexy FOX news anchors than listen to well educated, unique, and opinionated intellectuals challenge each other's beliefs with well thought out arguments. Occasionally C-SPAN will have something worth watching when it comes to current events, but not often.
Amen. Buckley and Hitchens represent both sides of the political fence with impressive calm and intellectual ammo. Tyrrell, hawking the book, is no idiot, but IS a bit of a lightweight in this kind of company in terms of his poise. He'd be at home on many of today's less impressive, more opinion driven news shows.
Exactly. These older clips are leaving me thirsty for true intellectual debates.
Probably most columnist today are red, but probably not well read.
It was very accurate on the part of the uploader to leave that third character's name out of the title. And as an aside, no has ever, nor will anyone ever again be able to fuck someone up so thoroughly with words as Christopher could and often did.
I couldn't have put it better if I tried.
The more I see of Hitchens the more I like him. Great to see a younger Christopher in action!
"If you don't think that's more serious, that's your problem and not mine." Classic Hitch.
There is a gem of a moment at about 26:00 - Tyrell: "Pretty good, eh Christopher?" Hitchens: "Yeah, I am so glad I didn't write it myself."
jojokerus
Lol
TTTTTTSSSSSSSSSSSAVAGE!!!
@@mdl222 and right after at 26:24 "for your position to be... even humorous,"
Gives new meaning to living life "in the moment".. what else is there after all for the nihilistic.
An early, vintage Hitchslap!
"I've also read your book more carefully than you have." savage.
No talk show today is half as good as this.
I agree!!
Apart from the host being so supercilious in his every remark!
It’s almost impossible to have a political talk show like this today. There’s too much money to make in advertising to give educated people a time to talk. This is why podcasts are so popular. It requires an intellectual effort for the audience and patience to actually listen.
I never knew that Norm Macdonald had a prior life as a writer.
Buckley and Hitchens are both brilliant debaters. I've no clue what the other guy is doing in the room with them.
MetrazolElectricity I disagree with a lot of modern feminist rhetoric, but him Tyrell saying the Women's Christian Temperance League's power showed that women were powerful is a horrible argument. They couldn't even vote in national elections at the time. How was he wrong about feminism? They were undoubtably a repressed group in US society for centuries. They may not be now, but that's the point. It's because of the past feminist waves that so many seem so ridiculous now.
Lavache Beadsman Terrell was a darling of the Republican Right in the early 80's thru 90's. He was primarily a columnist, for Buckley's magazine, I believe.
Lavache Beadsman I feel like with Buckley and Hitch, we're seeing the dignity of debate between an old-school conservative and an old-school liberal. And every time Tyrell pipes up, it's like seeing a foreshadowing of the noisy neo-conservative tone to come.
Lavache Beadsman well he wrote the book expressing the opinions which they are arguing.
Dick Varga
Ahh, missed that point. Thanks!
I love how Hitchens slowly but surely makes the better argument and thus impresses the shit out of Buckley to the point where Buckley all but dismisses Tyrell (as a the idealogue).
I noticed that too.......
That's called a systematic oppression of dissenting views by Liberals, to dominate and control the narrative. There is an assumption here that Tyrell was "not as intelligent" as the other two, but that's not necessarily true. He just wasn't as pompous, therefore, got less respect in the audience's eyes. Because that's what the Left does when confronted with facts. Evade and avoid and put the onus on the other person to be more "witty" and therefore, convincing. I watched several instances in this video where Hitchens resorted to character assassinations when confronted with facts (different opinions, actually) from Tyrell. Ideologies, on their face, are just that, ideas. Does not make them right, even though the speaker wants to convince you that because they can spew more book verses, that what they're saying is more valid. Horsehockey. You were just reading the wrong books on Liberalism vs. common sense. No magic there.
Indeed. Terrell is/was a superficial & supercilious RW mouthpiece & not a serious thinker whatsoever. A joke, IOW…
Viewers note: there is but one analysis that is pertinent here. Mr Hitchens was invited back to Firing Line, frequently. Mr Tyrell vanished into obscurity. Conclusion: Mr Buckley appreciated Hitchens style and respected him for it. High praise indeed.
Terrell genuinely believes he is more intelligent than Hitchens . You couldn’t make it up .
sitting in the middle of two people that want to discredit and demonize you. I wish I had his mental abilities and fortitude. Hitchens really is IMO a singularly amazing mind.
Simply remind yourself that there's no need to let emotions get in the way of discussions - it actually gives you a serious leg up in any discussion, as it allows you to organise your thoughts for a superior argument :)
love Hitch in an ideological debate! too bad his ideology is fundamentally unsound
You can feel the tension of the whole debate. Its like a make or break fight for survival
Nothing better to watch than a bunch of Sophists one-upping the other in new ways.
It is hilarious that anyone would dare to accuse Hitchens of not understanding a situation (25.34) when he was one of the most erudite, informed human beings we have had the privilege to hear. Seeing him in action is a tonic. He is sorely missed.
Amen. I miss his sharp wit & even sharper intellect. Amazing to watch how cool under fire he was in the face of a pointless blowhard who did little but hurl insults & barely addressed facts on merit.
Imagine thinking anyone is incapable of misunderstanding something. Hitchens fans are insufferable.
No one misses that drunken, Iraq war supporting idiot.
Hitchens ' eloquence was outstanding.
I love at the end when Buckley almost forgets Tyrell's name.
"That's like saying if your aunt had cojones she would be your uncle", Hitchens is my hero. I am just glad that after all his books there is still all this type footage for me to enjoy!
The man cast a long shadow
Hitchens is the McDonald’s of the intellectual world. Mike wife and an inch deep.
@@Billsbob You are right, but he was very entertaining for me at that age, and a stepping stone in my discovery of other intellectuals. He was the most important person in many people's journey into critical thinking. That being said I feel that once people get this far they are most likely already moving in the right direction of intellectual consumption, and so hold my critical opinion save those who are obviously misinterpreting it.
Christopher Hitchens has awesome poise and wit.....just too bad hes so often wrong.
Fast forward to the 2020s....
This is so nice for the bits that Tyrrell doesn't chime in while he is being dazzled by his betters.
The ability to erudite about the issues being discussed between Hitchens und Buckley is so very enjoyable.
The third guy hardly gets a word in, that's a bit sad
Still watching in 2020. Hitch is amazing.
Tyrrell is hillarious. Every time I think some of the modern conservatives are a little on the deep end, I listen to Tyrrell and realize it has been happening for a long time. I consider William F/ Buckley Jr a hero of mine and started watching him in high school. I did not agree with Mr. Buckley on many things. Tyrrell is not fit for debates on Firing Line because he is like a lot of current conservatives accusing, arrogant, disrupting and accusatory. He takes out of context just about everything that Christopher says or things. Mr. Buckley at least has a honest debate on ideas, and that is why I love him.
Interesting that Tyrrell calls everyone who does not think like him a phanatic. Hitchens is cool and competent as is Buckley and are highly enjoyable. Tyrrell is the precursor to FOX news.
+Maurice Jones
Seriously, this guy Tyrrell's views on feminism at the time sound like the typical reactionary bullshit against it by white men who couldn't handle the fact that's women's roles in society were changing because women fought like hell to make it change. Typical narrow-minded view of feminism by a white privileged dude who didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Hitchens obviously had a better grasp on it---I actually liked Hitchens back in the day before he become a supporter of right-wing views and became an arrogant dick. Interesting to see him while he was still a liberal,though.
+rainmaker690 Great comment. I'd just say one thing, though: Hitchens wasn't a liberal; he was a socialist. But yeah, it's a shame how he drifted towards the right later in life.
+Maurice Jones Excellent comment and I feel the exact same way that you do about it. I found the exchange between Buckley and Hitchens fascinating and Tyrell's input to be incredibly annoying.
+MKrip808 I so wish we had debaters on the conservative side instead of the attacking, angry, judgmental attitudes like with Tyrrell.
+Maurice Jones " accusing, arrogant, disrupting and accusatory"........that is exactly the way liberals are characterized...
Tyrrell was like the little brother invited to the adults table. See i'm grown see? no, shut up and learn something. it's easy to see Hitch and Buckley going off to dinner for further discussion without the kid around.
+Ttheway2 life and he's sitting there acting so smug like he's the cock of the walk on that set.
+MKrip808 And has a ridiculously prepubescent voice lol
+Ttheway2 life I totally agree,but also mr.buckley is barely holding his own against mr.hitchens,so he keeps cutting him off!!!!!!
When you can see the half-cool, half-frightening smile and the light in Buckley’s eyes, you know he rates the person he’s speaking to. He never looks anything but bored by his own, supposed, chum.
Thanks for publishing (part of) the original release date. It'd be nice if EVERYONE did this!
How embarrassing for Tyrell. When your a right winger and Buckley is constantly correcting and disagreeing with you, you are showing a lack of acumen, understanding and in his case, obnoxiousness. Its funny how he tries to warm up to "William" Buckley by calling him "Bill" and reminding (apparently mistakenly ) "Poor" Christopher that he is outnumbered.
Poor Tyrell, pwreric. He was arrogant and disillusioned.
Tyrell accuses Hitchens of being an ideologue while being completely oblivious to the fact that his argument shows his own ideological bias. This man can't argue to save his life.
I agree with you about Tyrell but Hitchens was in fact an ideologue at his time. He said in the beginning that he was a socialist and he said later in life that he used to be a Marxist.
The 'ideology' of the Right is not an ideology is the way that the Left's is. The Right believes, broadly speaking, that people must be left alone to do as they wish unless specifically told they can't do something; the Left believes that people must be told they can't do things unless specifically told that they can. The Left has a set of rules which it doesn't like to be questioned, and Left-wing regimes routinely suppress the voices of truth-seekers. The Right simply doesn't do this. The Left's heart is in the right place, but it quickly forgets about its heart when it gets into power. The 'ideology' of the Right is closer to a 'philosophy'. Hence the reason that every 20 year-old angry student can trot out a list of those Left-wing desiderata without having to draw breath.
That's simply not true.. The Right pushes for schools to educate kids in creationism in favor of evolution and wants to promote abstinence in the favor of sex education. Additionally, the Right wants to completely ban abortion, which obstructs upon individual liberties. The Right also generally supports agricultural subsidies and helping out the oil industry and that is not leaving people alone alone at all, as it's our money going into those subsidiaries. By definition, the Left questions the status quo and challenges ideals while the Right seeks to maintain that social hierarchy and status quo.
@@reginaldmolethrasher437 I wonder in which way you lean.
This is like watching a boxer like Tyson or Ali at their peek.. Hitchens was sooo sharp here!! unreal!!
And when he had beaten all comers, he then took on the religions of the world, fearless in the knowledge that he could trounce them too (and he did).
@@genepoole1771 On the contrary, his confidence was ill-founded: he knew nothing of true Christianity, and preferred to continue to know nothing so that he could shoot down straw men.
@@lawrence1318 I think what you mean by "knew nothing of true christianity" is that he did not have faith, but by definition this gap qualified rather than disqualified him from dismantling the doctrinal contradictions and moral corruption of major world religions.
@@genepoole1771 No. I actually mean he knew nothing of true Christianity.
Commensurately, faith in Christianity consists of an absolute knowing: it is not faith in the sense in which you think of it.
So it is not hope, or superstition, or reasoning based on any sort of probability, but an absolute knowing. Hitchens wasn't aware of this, as neither are most people.
But that was not the main problem. The main problem is that Hitchens wasn't interested in finding out what true Christianity is. So he simply chose to continue to shoot down straw men to keep his pay cheque coming in.
These are the type of videos that make me love youtube.
Hitch's sock and tie combo.. killing it.
Holy crap I had this video tabbed the whole time, thinking that Hitchens was arguing with an extremely right wing woman and tabbed back in to find it's a curly haired man in a suit.
Has anyone ever been more pleased with themselves than Buckley?
I'm afraid Mr Buckley doesn't impress me at all but I'm not American . Gore Vidal really did impress me and I only heard him speaking without even knowing his name .
@@jamesguitar7384
Bravo 🙌 so well stated
Reminds me of the title of an Anthony Trollope novel, “He Knew He Was Right”
Even though I hold the opposite politics, I always admired Buckley for his place as the foremost conservative intellectual and for his Firing Line programs. Gore Vidal was his equal on the left. Both gentlemen had cause to think highly of themselves.
“I don’t blame you for trying to change the subject”, the essence of C. Hitchens. Polite with a big punch in the face.
By today's standards, that would be "transphobic". Seems like we've lost so much ground in public discourse
My favorite take down of this whole thing is when Hicthens said "Excuse me sir, but I've done a lot of work to get into America, you were just born here."
Noam Chomsky was the politest in his come backs too with the ugliest arrogance of Buckley but I agree CH had the punch.
@@pjdiver3 Huh? We all make ourselves mad through contrived arguments in our head once in a while but typically you should keep that to yourself
@@pjdiver3 Indeed, we have lost ground in public discourse; nobody on the panel, not even the infantile Tyrrell, would have made such a gross flight of fancy as you just made with a straight face.
Tyrrell: "I contend that men and women never had to be polticised on the grounds of sex or gender"
Buckley: "Well surely they had to be politicsed to give them the vote"
Tyrrell: "Weeeell... I'm talking about the present"
"I'm quite happy to grant you that a woman would need to be happy go lucky to associate with you." +1 point to Mr Hitchens.
versus a woman who is desperate to be with a hutchens who is more committed to a bottle than any lady
It was a cheap shot, classic ad personam argument. He made many more came in the same vein. Despite his intellect he liked to use them.
@@tomaszkostyra7554 ... he was also responding to Tyrell's charge of lying ( Hitchen's accurate take on the accusation of inexactitude.)
I think that comment was apt in the context of that part of the discussion. The author of the book was revealing that his view of women was directly related to the women he associated with.
@@tomaszkostyra7554 Alternatively known as a "joke"
17:24 HOLY CRAP Hitchens slapped the crap out of Mr No name with "I don't feel pain in my ribs,I know a rapier when I see one and I know I haven't been pronged" then "I grant you that a women would have to be happy go lucky to associate with you"
Christopher was so young. I miss him.
"I'm so glad I didn't write it myself" Classic!
Excellent post on many different levels. Thanks!
Both Buckley and Tyrell get so fearful of Hitch's truths they can't help but interrupt him.
Excellent debate. We need more of these.
That Tyrrell clown is unbelievable obnoxious when he acts all chummy and patronizing . But that is quite alright, since he was wrong about just about everything and is a nobody today and Hitchens was right and is a legend.
+Collin Pruett - Christopher Hitchens surely in later years adjusted (probably more than once) his resume', I'll give ya that. But a neo-con, w/due respect to your opine, I don't think I'd go that far. Especially taking into account he began as somewhat of a Socialist (by his own admission). An real unique individual. RIP ="Mr. Christopher Hitchens"
+akselp UH HITCH IS DEAD , NO LEGEND , NO HERO , NEVER WON A DEBATE.
+akselp is this Tyrrell guy huffing helium? What the hell is up with that voice!?
+joe shmo I think I've watched all his debates, and all his performances on question-answer/panel shows. I don't think it's an overstatement to say that he steamrolled everyone. The only debate I can think of that, perhaps, wasn't completely one-sided was his religious debate with Haldane. Haldane's arguments were so steeped in formal academia that Hitchens had a hard time attacking him. However, Haldane had the same problem with Hitchens.
THE HITCH LOST TO WLC AND A FEW OTHERS IMO. HIS PROBLEM BEING FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED IN HIS STANCE OF NO GOD. HE WAS CORRECT ON RELIGEON HOWEVER.
Why couldnt I have had Hitchens as a teacher in school? When he spells it out things make total sense to me!
all rhetoric so shows what you know!
@@boliussa6051 comments from 8 years ago bud 😂 touch grass
glory days of Hitchens. understated, perfect dismantling of facetious arguments. always think of him when i read "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"
My favorite past time, watching Hitchens out class conservatives.
I find it amusing to observe this Emmett Tyrrell harlequin genuinely thinks he's winning this debate and has the upper hand and is clueless that Hitchens and even Buckley are treating him like an annoying gnat worth swatting at.
+tinote I find it amusing that you consider Emmett Tyrrell a "harlequin".
+Tom Jones Hardly. Buckley and Tyrrell essentially are in agreement they simply have a different way of stating it. The fact you don't understand that proves you are a liberal.
Mark Johnson Okay. Since you don't like "harlequin", which of the following adjectives do you prefer?
...buffoon, joker, fool, jester, clown, pantaloon, blockhead, dunce, dolt, ignoramus, imbecile, cretin, dullard, simpleton, moron, clod...
Please alert and I'll edit the original post.
+tinote I actually watched this when it was originally aired. I was in high school back then and this was the first time I had ever seen Hitch. I was a Reagan supporter and I remember being absolutely amazed (and annoyed) at how Hitch was able to completely destroy all of Tyrrell's arguments. I've since changed my mind about Reagan and now I'm really sad when I reflect on how Hitch would eventually become a supporter of the NeoCons.
+NamelessPoster LOL...
Emmett Tyrell (whoever he is) is dead ringer for Norm MacDonald! (Especially the thumbnail for this vid).
I take it you're referring to Emmett Tyrell, and yes he does look like McD. However while Tyrell is certainly a " 'tard" of some description, he is not a liberal. He was (and remains) the editor of the American Spectator, which as a publication could not be said to be liberal by any stretch- unless of course you categorize anything even slightly to the left of Genghis Khan as liberal. There's nothing in his statements that would be out of place in a Tea Party pamphlet today, except of course he's more well-spoken. As conservative commentators go, Tyrell is certainly a lightweight compared to Buckley himself (or even to Hitchens' own brother, Peter, who is masterful), and therefore his presence in this discussion was entirely superfluous.
Did you just call that guy a Liberal? Da Faq? Is that how far the right has become that you think of him as a Liberal? HA! The only Liberal on that panel has Hitchens. He was a Republican at death but was once a Socialist/Liberal. The Iraq war turned him Republican. But Tyrell was a Republican. HA. Its like saying Regan is a Liberal.
***** Hitch was never a Republican. If anything, he was a lifelong independent. Please do not slander his memory.
***** Well said, except that Hitchens didn't become a Republican. He did take a Neocon stance on the war against Islamists - - or as he would have said, Theocratic Fascism. On all other matters he remained on the Left.
***** And that frankly is a leftist view anyway
23:53
Tyrell: You live in a world full of kooks!
Hitchens: You’re very sweet to say so. 😆
My favourite bit.
I almost didn't recognize our brilliant orator provocateur, but not surprised his brilliance was so evident even when so young.
Tyrell is certainly in love with himself.
Wow.
While I disagreed with Buckley, he was a brilliant, thoughtful person.
Watching him try & save Tyrrell from the skinning Hitchens gives him is fascinating.
The saddest thing about watching this is only one of these men is still alive.
And it's the wrong one.
+Dan Cole "The saddest thing about watching this is only one of these men is still alive.
And it's the wrong one." Nice "Atheist" morals you have ;)
lol its harsh but true
+Rock 07 I don't know what you mean by 'atheist morals' but monotheists believe Hitch should burn in hell for eternity, is that view in any way comparable and not morally abhorrent?
Morphing Reality
I'm atheist myself, it's idiotic to want someone dead because their don't share your beliefs.
+Rock 07 i highly doubt Dan Cole legitimately wants him dead and i think you know he doesn't mean it literally. not to mention he never said he wanted him dead for his beliefs he said its sad that hitchens is dead and he isn't.
Hitchens always plays the ball. All of his opponents always end up playing the man. A sign of weakness on their behalf. RIP good Sir. you truly slayed them all.
I get so peeved when a debate devolves into ad-hominem attacks. It’s embarrassing.
Well said
Say what you will about Buckley, the way he leans back and sound emerges from his skull is very amusing.
Absolutely brilliant, thanks for posting. If only today's political debate shows contained arguments over 'the undistributed middle in your logic' :D
At least they still HAVE debate in Britain; we have NO debate in America, unfortunately, thanks to the woke virus that's infected liberalism.
It's a pretty ironic situation, given the fact that America is the ONLY country in the world which guarantees free speech as a right.
Hitchslapping people since the 80s
StarReel Hitchens himself has admitted his evolution in political views so no he was slapped here
Thindorama Hitchens still had these views in his later life he was no Emmett Tyrrel in his later life.
kookieless well if that's the case I'm sorry to hear that such a bright man couldn't overcome his delusions in that respect
Thindorama In which respect, exactly?
StarReel Slapped himself more than anyone else.
I love how Hitchens immediately calls out Buckley’s use of whataboutism.
I was depressed to see that whataboutism has been painfully present but unextinguished for at least this long.
That was impressive!
I love how Buckley immediately pointed out the ineradicable hypocrisy of the left.
@@beachplumbmeanwhile, a year later,and the modern right’s hypocrisy is unparalleled.
@@benedictdonald4338 Oh - you mean the way republicans have whined about stolen elections for 20 years, and delayed the transfer of power for 2 months in 2004 by filing lawsuits, but then have the democrat front runner arrested for doing what they always do? Oops…Wait…stop…reverse that…
it would be so nice if there were still TV shows like this...
Thanks for the upload, a real joy to hear and see a younger Hitchens, especially in conversation with one of the most formidable debaters extant at the time, Buckley.
Two intellectual Titans plus some other guy.
Jeff Melchior well said
Jeff Melchior lol!!!!
You must be seeing double.
Buckley was not an intellectual giant.
@@boxer12350 Why?
That first 10 seconds is like being a non local walking into my village pub.
Looool
And also like the scene in An American Werewolf in London when the two Americans walk in to the pub
@@Unsung_Earth I love how that scene looks so foreboding to people but it's every village pub "ENOUGH!, that's enough".
This is absolutely amazing and currently relevant right now (2/2022).
"Terminological Inexactitude wasn't what you meant was it? You wanted to call me a liar, didn't you?"
Hitchens....You are fucking brilliant...
That part of the video was awesome.
Hitch was quoting Churchill.
LOL Hitchen's quick, snappy comebacks to Tyrrell's juvenile digs were classic. Makes Tyrrell look like a bigger clown than he already is. I think Tyrrell likely cried under his pillow that night after such a humiliation.
He didn't even notice it.
Not really
Sadly I doubt it registered, if only it had then I'm sure his character would have been vastly improved
@Ken Nuppenau Give credit to whom the credit is really due: the right-wing sugar daddies like Scaife, who shelled out the $ to keep Tyrell's barely-read and foundering rag afloat in the 90s
Christopher Hitchens is incredibly quick and very very funny. I miss this guy.
Tyrrell is the funniest political essayist because he is actually Norm MacDonald
If he was he'd be funnier lol!
So eloquent. Such a calm, composed demeanour.
If I were the guy in the blue suit, I would've shut my mouth to listen to Hitchens, and then brag about the fact that I once sat beside him.
darthsadic Whenever some younger relatives come to visit Tyrell, he shows them this vid and says "See the guy in the blue suit sitting next to Hitchens and Buckley? That's me!"
Part of the required training to becoming a political hack, it would seem: Proper posture and vocal inflections combined with a complete declension [or abortion] of integrity, of terms [which Hitchens referred to as "elasticity of the definition" (13:16)], and of historic context/reference.
darthsadic You have to remember that this was during the Reagan years when the right wing was proclaiming its victories over the democratic party. It smells of hubris when viewed in retrospective
darthsadic Hitchens discusses and analyzes ideas, while blue jacket spends all his time slagging Hitchens for being an "ideolog". Blue jacket is a total light weight compared to the other two.
Gary McDermott Also the time when conservatives like Buckley proudly proclaimed the end of liberalism in America.
Tyrrell really loves the words “ideologue”, “ideology”, and all their permutations.
Hitchens was 37 years ahead of his time.