@@yehboi6646 And so is your comment. Very American. Takes a stab at offering a thought without really making a good case for it. As a constantly embarrassed expat reading posts abroad, let me offer help. "one's" as in "one is". Not a plural of ones. A large volume of 1s. Clarity of speech. It's what Hitchens and the educated lot over there do so much better than our best could ever hope for, and our worst, like our politicians, are just fucking embarrassing to hear. Aspire to communicate clearly, and, perhaps, even, beautifully. No, you're not laughing out loud, "ARF ARF ARF". you are maybe, at most, chuckling to yourself. Spell it out man. be expansive, we have time to waste reading it. It's comments, the ultimate time waster. LOL WTF MLF . Really? Just feeling and doing and thinking and writing exactly what millions of other apparently only semi literate people are? Is that really all you gots home wipe? Pity. And by the way, no, he's not American. Not really, His kids might be, but he's a Brit living in the US, as I am an American living in Germany. 20 or 30 years of assimilation does not overpower the original programming. Jah, dass kann nicht passieren. No way dude.
*I have WENT THOUGH an HOUR of TORTURE!!!!* *Had to USE 3 - ACCOUNTS!!!!* *I LEARED that I am NOT ALLOWED to TYPE OUT the EVIL & VILE WORD of=>* *A ., T., H., E., S., T., S !!!!!!* *I am soooooooooooooo WORN that I wiLL just QUIT Right HERE!!!* *BUT=>* *I WILL VOTE TRUMP & ALL RePuns Cuz of this U-Atheist-Tube WAR upon ME!!!!* *Cuz of U-Bitch-Tube's Constant WAR on TRUTH, I wiLL Vote ANY RePubLiCan, Nov.3, 2020*
Hmmm. I'd argue that they are more suited to a platform like TH-cam, where people that want to watch them, can do whenever they like, rather than be locked to a TV schedule to try and catch them. Your idea, whilst I'm sure comes from a good place, has a problem that you kind of allude to yourself in your last sentence. Nobody forces anybody to watch anything on TV, unless (to use one of Christopher's favourite analogies) you are in N.Korea or the like. And if people in general wanted to watch this kind of stuff on TV, then it would already be on there. Broadcasters and advertisers would make sure of that. The facts are, whether we like it or not, the vast majority of people do not want to watch this kind of thing. And if you want them to, then you would have to force them to. A televisual dictatorship, if you will. 😉
Christopher says just because something is untamable does not mean we should not strive for it, and in the same breath calls the golden rule evil because it's untamable. The selective logic masked by wit and a British accent is comical.
My condolences to Peter on the loss of his brother. I expect he is very proud of him and the immense contribution he made to humanity. Both brothers were very brave to undertake this debate and we are all the better for it.
@Invesigator 2 'Original poster'. I was on the phone app and it doesn't let you leave the message without discarding it - I used OP as I wasn't able to see their username.
The exchange about Kipling, wow. Peter selected a quote for the debate then messed it all up and Christopher recited it from memory. What an amazing mind. We need him back desperately.
Yeah dude, this one got so personal the heat felt like a playoff game or a wrestling pay per view. They waited their whole lives for this it seems lmao. Either way, this was Christopher’s peak in my opinion, he was just too dangerous in the 2000’s throughout his 50’s. His experience, wisdom, and eloquence is just inspiring. I don’t know if I really buy him as a philosopher, but as a journalist, a contrarian, and as an essayist he is just too splendidly dangerous. Love this man
Christopher says just because something is untamable does not mean we should not strive for it, and in the same breath calls the golden rule evil because it's untamable. The selective logic masked by wit and a British accent is comical.
Here's what ya do - Get him down then give him the death of 1000 pokes .. finish up with some Indiana Jones Temple of doom style ' Kali maa ' 'KALI MAAAA' .. works every time 😉✌️ 🤠
They would have nothing to debate about with each other, since Christopher would agree with Peter on all the basic liberal enlightenment principles that are being debated about and that the illiberal left wants to take away now.
@@JesusFriedChrist I don't know, many liberals have shifted their view of libertarianism as wrong in morals. Some liberals (not through political parties) such as Stephen Fry have debated current political correctness issues and have condemned how the left attack the right with what they think, but in the same breath they cry free speech. So I think, like Fry, Hitchens would be on the fence with it
@@FarmingFiasco If you think Christopher Hitchens would be on the fence about anything, I don't think you have read his work. If he is knowledgable about a topic, he usually has an interesting take.
This is the first I'm learning of Peter's existence, crazy. It's wild how similar they are in their mannerisms, like body language, verbal cadence and everything. This was cool to stumble upon.
@@RogueAstro85 interesting... Yeah like I said I wasn't aware of him before this but I'm a big fan of Christopher and was somewhat surprised by how vehemently opposed Peter was to his outlook on religion. Just wasn't expecting it from the sibling of one of the most famous modern atheists. But then of course blood relation doesn't at all necessarily entail agreement on such matters. That's a shame, they must be like polar opposites in that regard.
@@Technicallyimright intellect is about reasoning and understanding not about "questionnaire". Yeah..Christopher Hitchens is far from perfect but don't underestimate/overestimate a man because of his beliefs.
I was brought up by a Father who was an atheist, a fine man of immense moral attituded without being punitive. A n incredibly kind yet firm man, who said we "each of us make our own spiritual way" because he had no right to impose , but had the right to give us his opinion for us to consider. What a man.
@@vitorroque6298 Every moral imperative is theoretically absolute, I.e. categorical. If an imperative is not categorical, and it is hypothetical, then it is not strong enough to be moral. According to the principle of universalizability the ethical person has as an ultimate ethic value the one which at the same time he can wish it is a universal law. This is regardless of religion. Of course this model is too simplistic because we haven't axiomatized reasoning and morality. That said, being absolute is rarely a good choice I'm everyday situations, yet it is something religious people tend to do all the time.
One simply cannot bring such a topic to the table so to speak. For such a controversial thing must be kept to the work at hand and simply not to the public. Just kidding, pass em
The question is were the potatoes created in the garden by a gardener who designed a vegetable patch, gave the potatoe life by planting a seed and giving it an environment to thrive in. Or, did they appear on the table randomly by chance and no one knows how or why they got there (since the rest of the meal is mac and cheese).
Christopher has the arguments that make me question my position on Iraq in some ways. Very free thinking man. We should all question our beliefs no matter how certain we are of them.
It is a point I can never be able to quite fully commit to meeting him on, but nevertheless atleast he was consistent and did not flip flop or backtrack on it, and as my grandad used to say 'If we were all the same, the world would be a boring shithole'.
Iraqi kurd here, they're both right i guess you can put it into four things 1- Did the regime have to go? Yes, was it vile and cruel ? Yes did it do everything chris said? Yes(also was looking to develop a nuclear program) 2- it was the right thing to do for the right reasons but ill reasons existed as well(war time presidents are popular and do get re elected, and a new land filled with oil and a new nation that the private industry can use to profit from, the military industrial complex) to name some. 3- do the means justify the ends? Yes and no, many wrongs were made in the process that never needed to happen. 4- and fourth which i think is the distinction that nobody cares about it. It's about the why and the how and afterwards. The new iraq was a weak corrupt government filled with greedy politicians popular idiots. The economy was left dead all the soldiers were fired(i think you can tell how they felt or what ex militaries do when let go(malitias).) The man you see next to bush when he gets a shoe thrown at him is nuri Maliki prime minister at the time he tried to dismantle parliament twice during his administration billions of dollars would just disappear off of the records using the office for personnel gain and for his allies. So much of the problems of todays iraq don't come from taking down Saddam and the fascist regime but how the new iraq was recreated. So many of which couldve been avoided but that takes time and money and support and dedication and simply it was much easier to give power to powerful families and tribes to rule and pretend iraq is fixed. I hope This isn't too long but it's my two cents
The difference between Christopher and most of the rest of us is that he took the time to read and understand the entirety of the context of things like Iraq. It's so easy to listen to a few sound bites and think you know enough to have an opinion on something.
While I agree with Christopher's assertions about Saddam's regime needing to go, I still have to be against the way the war played out and the aftermath, because, at least to my understanding, Iraq was not left in a very good state after, to say the least.
I disagreed with christopher on almost every topic, but free thinking and questioning your fundamental beliefs every so often is very important. Questioning can be scary in the short term. It's more comfortable to live on automatic pilot and remain gleefully sure of your beliefs. I have had more than a few existential crises as a result of my questioning, but in the long term it either strengthens my position, or gives me new insight and understanding into a subject. Either way, I am better off for it. Many people are taught not to question religious beliefs. Some sects discourage any questioning and make it seem like you are sinning to ask, which of course isn't true. People who have never questioned their religious/spiritual beliefs really have very little faith. They're afraid to question because they are afraid their beliefs will be broken down. And they will be, but they will be rebuilt better and stronger than ever in the long run. If the doctrine you believe in can't stand up to questions, it isn't worth believing.
Christopher says just because something is untamable does not mean we should not strive for it, and in the same breath calls the golden rule evil because it's untamable. The selective logic masked by wit and a British accent is comical.
I've watched dozens of debates with Christopher Hitchens, and this is my absolute favorite because it is so personal for both of them. They're entertained by each others' jabs, and the chemistry is perfect. Some debates get my blood boiling. This one is different. Despite the differing opinions, you can sense a mutual respect and even camaraderie between the two.
Richard Jones peter said in an interview some time ago, that this debate was a miserable experience for him. He felt that he was in an auditorium of people who worshipped Christopher and, as you’ll have noticed, he’ was relatively unengaged and became more so as the debate proceeded. They did another debate, which he enjoyed much more, but I’m not sure if it’s on TH-cam. I am awfully fond of Christopher Hitchens, but there are times when he is painfully obnoxious. An attitude is not an argument.
constantdoodle Your laughter at the fact that it is said that mother Hitchens killed herself is extremely offensive and unbelievably insensitive. Your post should be taken down unless you apologise immediately.
I came to the party late and I regret missing Christopher Hitchins live, but I am grateful for so many debates that continue to be posted after his very sad death.
@@Saber23 what an embarrassing response. The man put his money where his mouth was when it came to helping people, and he didn’t need the promise of everlasting life. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself, coward.
that's how the class structure works in the UK. Those from the "well to do" families rise very easily. Independent schools, followed by Oxford, followed by a lauded career. Not so easy for the rest of the population.
@@scobra5941 he did.that type of cancer he died of is often related to heavy smoking and even heavier alcohol usage.christopher managed to quit smoking in his later years but drinking remained.he confessed in an interview that his wife called him a functioning alcoholic.johnny walker black label was his weapon of choice.
I don't have a problem with some people mocking Christianity. But I am disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy and double standard, when the same people are defending Islam. This is suspicious and deeply troubling.
I don't know about you, but when I watched this in 2011 I was impressed by Christopher, but watching again this last year makes me appreciate Peter a lot more than I did then.
Here he is really elocuent, I still think Christopher is clearly a better debater and public speaker. Said that, Have you seen his recent takes on LGBT, COVID and drugs? what a clown.
First time viewing this debate, I found when it came religion, Peter focused more on disputing the reputability of Chris on this issue instead of focusing on the topic. Iraq is a big gray area, would be much clearer what was right wrong if we were completely aware of alternate timelines. But we aren't, and all we know is how things singularly happened.
You can see by Peter Hitchens reaction to part of Christopher's dialogue the deep admiration he has for his brother. Although they have different opinions on many things this debate was a meeting of great minds.
Peter was once an atheist as well, so it could be him laughing because its what he would have said in the past. But, it's likely some combination of that and what you suggested.
Christopher says just because something is untamable does not mean we should not strive for it, and in the same breath calls the golden rule evil because it's untamable. The selective logic masked by wit and a British accent is comical.
Copying and pasting the same idiotic, nonsensical comment on every comment thread just puts your own stupidity on full display for all to see. Knock it off.
@@raz6630 you have misunderstood the point. He was talking about attaining the truth, because as unattainable as it might seem, you should strive for it because as a concept there is a chance you might find it, it isn't be definition unattainable. That is in direct contrast to the evil he talks about because that was by its very design made to be unattainable, and for good reason, because it's made that way to be prevent you prevailing over it and seeing it for what it is.
"Since travelling to other countries". One of the best point peter made about Iraq. Anyone making a statement about war who haven't experienced it is weakened.
Sorry about Christopher passing. I feel the Christianity debate was unfair. Jesus spoke against religion. Many 'churches' have nothing to do with Christianity.
@@Sharetheroad3333 your response is both malicious and pathetic. I'm not religious either, and I disagree with the position of the person who you responded to. However you should have the decency to not needlessly insult people, not to mention doing so while failing to even make a counterargument. Truly odious stuff.
Timeless glorious conversation , praise to both for being free to talk, honest and civilized to discuss human issues with decorum and dignity. 10 out of 10..Cicero and Demosthenes would have been proud of their oratorial skills.
@@boliussa lol. No definitely not. I do enjoy listening to Peter Hitchens on talk radio on a Monday. Not quite the same I know but a voice of reason nonetheless.
@Tut J'wandian by far what? Did you even listen to his babble? :D name one valid he made that in anyway aided the debate and isn't just spewing fallacies, just one
@Tut J'wandian I must first do nothing :) but OK, argument from ignorance, now go ahead should be easy after all according to you everything he said demonstrates what a superior intelligence he has so, I'm waiting or are you going to carry on delaying
Wyn Williams Pretty sure you haven’t heard the philosophical proofs for the existence of God such as: The 5 Cosmological Arguments, Aristotellian act & potency, the impossibility of infinite regress. The most common is “Who made God!?!? CHECK MATE!!! ATHEIST 1-0” It’s the most foolish objection and the most ignorant objection against Classical Theism, it’s self-evident that the objection is invalid. “The Universe is infinite! Checkmate!” Infinite regress is actually impossible according to the premises of how infinite regress isn’t possible. *Members are dependent on other members, continue this to infinity, no member is in and of itself of that property, therefore X didn’t happen.*** “The Universe is a necessary being!” This simply isn’t the case because in order for something to not be contingent, it must be eternal, must be immutable, unchanging, uncaused.
What a fantastic privilege to see the 2 brothers . debate..... Respect to Both.... They both share a common sense and advocates of oratory Excellence even though on different sides of the debate. . RIP christopher... you gave much to our world...
Peter starts to quote a Kiplin poem, apparently he thought of it in advance of the debate to help his argument.. An obscure poem so forgettable Peter forgets how it goes, so he goes through his notes, then just gives up and just wings it. Chris walks to the podium and gives the full and correct quote to help Peter, who had totally messed it up. Chris just pulled it from that massive library in his head. Agree with his positions or not, the man had a memory like an elephant.
I miss him dearly. We lost a great British treasure the day Christopher passed, i know our American cousins and the Nation he called home also must miss him dearly.
Peter spoke about this years after and said he hated it. he was under the impression he'd be attending a casual, small attended debate and he was looking forward to it. He was shocked to see the crowd and how many were Christopher fanboys.
He was probably just disappointed to realize that his dumb and tired religious apologism and science denialism doesn't generate as many ardent fanboys as his brother's sharp intellectualism.
@@MikkoVille You obviously know absolutely nothing about the man. He’s very much used to being on the outside of the mainstream and revels in it, in fact he excels when he’s up against it.
@@MikkoVille I’m pretty sure it’s Peter’s brother that only has “fanboys”. I actually disagree with a lot of things he says but you mischaracterise him and I’m pulling that up. What’s your problem with his religious beliefs? He isn’t out trying to convert people, he isn’t a mouthpiece or recruiter for the Church of England. He just answers questions on it when asked and states his position. What is your problem with that exactly?
@@Jesus_Saves_66 Do you think the supposed creator of the universe actually minds? I think god is just a man made concept so for me its a non issue anyhow but even so.....
Christopher had the advantage of having much of the audience behind him from the start, and the advantage of his charisma. In these circumstances Peter can't win.
@@2003Rooney LOL nice wording. Idolize huh. We resepct and admire him. Idols exists in your fairy tale. Unless you mean the second definition if idol which is respect, admiration and revered. And that is true. Be careful with your wording.
@@Jw-un8oh "We"? Speaking as a collective? Be careful with your wording. Lmao like if the former part of your statement wasn't supposed to be a setup for the fairy-tail jab... You arent smart, you're just a loser
I remember as i grew up how I would enter into debates like this, in these darker times you can't express opinions without being demonised. What a terrible culture we are developing. It is so valuable in being able to ecpress polarised views to get to a point of moderation, and being respected for being open and strong enough to change your views in the light of better evidence. Less tribal agreement with powerful leaders. Much more about seeking powerful reasoning and testing ideas against the oposite view. We used to be given topics at school and have to put forward an argument, not our own standpoint, but often the opposite view. This was a very helpful discipline when learning anything.
Couldn't agree more. I can't understand how there isn't more people that see it that way. Baffles me. I am not married to any opinion enough to deny factual evidence. You should change your perception based on evidence.
Christopher would be so disappointed by how Iraq and Afghanistan was handled and left to their own devices. The betrayal our governments committed to those people is unforgivable.
@@Lord_Thistlewick_Flanders Huh, no. I think Hitchens had a weak point on every topic that was brought up. Hitchens, however, provided impressive insights that I found to be profoundly useful.
I met both Hitchens and Dawkins, you might think their personality in writing mirror the same as in person, I found it to be the opposite. Dawkins was demanding and attention seeking, while Hitchens was down to earth and not bothered by the trivial matters in life, which others seem to take as their replacement for religion. It saddened me greatly that Chris seemed taken from us so quickly.
I think it's obvious that Dawkins is a douche by watching his intellectual interactions. Hitchens was always much more gracious. Even though I don't agree with him on religion, I agree with him on many other things. He was much more intellectual than Dawkins.
Yes but that's exactly the problem of live and let live mentality. It often leaps into r-selected habits like drinking and smoking. Maybe Dawkins is a bit of prick but sometimes that stems of actually having demands in life and not accepting whatever comes your way.
Though it is nice to know that Hitchens was a nice guy in person. And you can see that a lot in these speeches, he just happens to get annoyed by perceived hypocrisies.
Both of these men are great because they at least argue their point and attempt to educate their audience so they can make a decision. It’s a much more elegant way of persuasion vs the current climate of emotion and rage.
The liberation of Iraq "will stand, I am convinced, as one of the greatest decisions of American statecraft". Today, I think we now know who won the debate
*I Agree with God-Hating Christ Hitch on the Irak War!!!!* *I am OPPosed to Peter Eater Hitch, on BOTH Counts!!!!* *I (an Agnostic BeLiever in JeHoVah GOD) would Prefer NO GOD* *rather than the DeMonic EVIL VILE PeterEater god of the PeterEater!* *Robert Robertson; Center street; SaLem, Oregon* 🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫 🔫 🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫 🔫🔫
Tip for any person moderating a debate...always say "provocative" multiple times, and "We are here to discuss the most important question/ one of the most important questions"... finally, if you think you've used the word "provocative" enough, you haven't, say it again.
I laughed so hard after the statement Peter made starting at 45:01 and people clapped for it, then Christopher was shocked and told them to stop that. Lol. I miss Christopher.
I understand that the Hitchens brothers' mother died some decades ago, but if the father lived long enough to be alive during the time of this debate I hope he was proud that two of his sons became such influential and well spoken men.
"As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." I see at least ONE of the reasons for Christopher's sharp intellect. He has had a person in his life with whom he has disagreed with for decades. That makes any person very learned in any subject. I love it. Shout out to Peter man. Love these brothers.
Both perspectives are strong and valid but having the luxury of Retrospect we should have left Iraq well alone militarily. The same goes of course for Libya but we indeed Sowed The Wind. RIP Christopher and Long Live Peter. Two giants of debate and so proud of both these Great Britons.
I seem to be the only one to point out that, as with all men, rivalry is measured in terms of sexual success - clearly the older brother, both brilliant and a beauty from an early age, both worshipped, hated and envied by the younger, who, though an achiever in his own right (although naturally competitive in the same field) exudes lack of success with the ladies. Unfair?
Linnet Asquith Any statement that begins with “all men” that is not a medical fact is probably false and outrageously sexist. That tip I’ll give you for free
Here I am in 2023 still finding this fascinating. I tend to agree more with the Christopher side of the Hitchens family but really enjoy hearing both sides expressed very well. Listen to both and make up your own mind is the key.
These are my distant cousins but I have never seen Christopher before. Have met Peter once, and I understand and agree with his points more than Christopher's. He seemed rather mixed up to me. I wonder how he feels about it now he has met his maker?
He knows the Truth now. So much empty rhetoric. Delusional tryna say communism and bolveshik were religious. Dude never has any answer just bitches all the time.
Wow. So bold by Peter. He literally refused to debate it with Christopher. He plainly called him out on the circular argument he ever used. The refusal to identify human evil and depravity is a very sad fault that is ultimately willful blindness.
Didn't know that there was a brother, and initially thought that Christopher would debate ... himself! A wonderful occasion to witness this repartee, and regret again Christopher's early departure from the world of the living!
Although I agree with him on most of these topics, I find Christopher Hitchens hard to love in this debate - witty, sure, but also a bully and a show-off.
@@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543You my friend are one of the many burdens to society. While I refuse to exempt myself from this category I’m not the one willfully ignorant of the evident effect of my ideology. Goodnight God bless.
You say that because you're ignorant. Saddam was no different to Hitler, except in scale - and less Iraqis have died per year since his departure, than before it. There should be no place on Earth for filth like Saddam - just how do you argue otherwise?
Steve Brown Britain had been screwing with Iraq since the 40s to keep their oil supply good. Iranian revolution in the 80s caused directly by the US and Britain again out of their desire to acquire nature resources from the Middle East, pretty much created the environment for Iraq to invade Iran. Pretty much the west tried to dominate the Middle East and keep them weak whilst stealing their resources until their was massive backlash. Yes I agree Saddam is a P.O.S but US/UK helped created him and the hostility in the Middle East.
@@bridgenorton537 Are you a left wing moron? The revolution was caused by Islamists - the vilest ideology on Earth after Leftism. You have a Left Wing view of reality - ie complete fantasy. You've not addressed anything I said about Saddam. All you've done is try to blame the west for it. Pathetic.
@Dear dad You're thicker than crude oil. He gassed 180, 000 Kurds that were his people. He tortured and killed many thousands more. You live in a fantasy land of ignorance.
Would loved to have seen Christopher hit the podcast circuit of today. So many potential great conversations could have been had with Peterson, Rogan, Freidman, etc
I have a feeling he would have seen through Peterson’s guru schtick - and more particularly the religious grift he’s peddling at the moment. He may have shown solidarity with him and his cause when he first came to public attention regarding free speech in Canada. Can see him getting on with Rogan though.
@@Alex-mj5dvi can almost hear him say "if that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do", in his golden sarcastic tone at Peterson's failure at answering the question "Do you believe in God".
just watched the whole thing (again after several years gap) and i'm now convinced the CH believed he lost this debate - he must have been aware that some of his debating points were simple retorical tricks and the fact that he was unprepared to concede on anything gives an air of desperation in his tone.
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
I agree with Hitchens on the war, but I agree with Hitchens on religion.
+Joe Lynch LOL
+Joe Lynch same
I fully agree with you on this statement Joe.
On the contrary... I disagree with Hitchens on the war and agree with Hitchens on religion!!
No. I disagree with Hitchens on the war, but I disagree with Hitchens on religion. And at the same time agree with you.
I expected to see an edited video of Christopher hitchens arguing with himself
XVopere L he rarely changes his mind on logic and reason
Im sure some schmuck has made that.
I also came for this 😂
@@joshjohnson3347 But if it were done truly well...
XVopere L He’d still win.
The recent tantrum Peter had while debating with Alex O’Connor is a far cry from this legendary debator
Sinead O'Connor?
Alex O'Connor @@apolicum
Tom O'Connor?
Des O'Connor?
Brian O'Connor?
3:26 First topic - The invasion of Iraq
31:24 Second topic - God
1:09:22 Questions from the audience
Thank you
"Mom says it's my turn to explain the truth of the universe".
42
lol
Deutsch
😂
@Joe Menguy you are a genius
Only in the hichens family does the conservative brother oppose war in irak and the liberal one approve of it^^
Dirk Knight as in?
alexis Juillard ones American lol
@@yehboi6646 And so is your comment. Very American. Takes a stab at offering a thought without really making a good case for it. As a constantly embarrassed expat reading posts abroad, let me offer help. "one's" as in "one is". Not a plural of ones. A large volume of 1s. Clarity of speech. It's what Hitchens and the educated lot over there do so much better than our best could ever hope for, and our worst, like our politicians, are just fucking embarrassing to hear.
Aspire to communicate clearly, and, perhaps, even, beautifully. No, you're not laughing out loud, "ARF ARF ARF". you are maybe, at most, chuckling to yourself. Spell it out man. be expansive, we have time to waste reading it. It's comments, the ultimate time waster. LOL WTF MLF . Really? Just feeling and doing and thinking and writing exactly what millions of other apparently only semi literate people are? Is that really all you gots home wipe? Pity.
And by the way, no, he's not American. Not really, His kids might be, but he's a Brit living in the US, as I am an American living in Germany. 20 or 30 years of assimilation does not overpower the original programming. Jah, dass kann nicht passieren. No way dude.
@@MarkTarmannPianoCheck_it_out I love this comment. That is all I can say about it.
*I have WENT THOUGH an HOUR of TORTURE!!!!*
*Had to USE 3 - ACCOUNTS!!!!*
*I LEARED that I am NOT ALLOWED to TYPE OUT the EVIL & VILE WORD of=>*
*A ., T., H., E., S., T., S !!!!!!*
*I am soooooooooooooo WORN that I wiLL just QUIT Right HERE!!!*
*BUT=>*
*I WILL VOTE TRUMP & ALL RePuns Cuz of this U-Atheist-Tube WAR upon ME!!!!*
*Cuz of U-Bitch-Tube's Constant WAR on TRUTH, I wiLL Vote ANY RePubLiCan, Nov.3, 2020*
I think it is pretty obvious that Hitchens won...
Good one, best comment on here lol.
It is also obvious that he lost
Are you deaf!? Hitchens embarrassed himself, clearly Hitchens won.
First name Justin, Last name Credible
And other Gettier beliefs
Things like this should be broadcast on TV everywhere. We are diminished by the low entertainment being force fed to us.
So true.
Hmmm. I'd argue that they are more suited to a platform like TH-cam, where people that want to watch them, can do whenever they like, rather than be locked to a TV schedule to try and catch them. Your idea, whilst I'm sure comes from a good place, has a problem that you kind of allude to yourself in your last sentence. Nobody forces anybody to watch anything on TV, unless (to use one of Christopher's favourite analogies) you are in N.Korea or the like. And if people in general wanted to watch this kind of stuff on TV, then it would already be on there. Broadcasters and advertisers would make sure of that. The facts are, whether we like it or not, the vast majority of people do not want to watch this kind of thing. And if you want them to, then you would have to force them to. A televisual dictatorship, if you will. 😉
It's not being force to us. We choose to watch it.
What is being force to us is you forcing this.
Even though I agree with you
Christopher says just because something is untamable does not mean we should not strive for it, and in the same breath calls the golden rule evil because it's untamable. The selective logic masked by wit and a British accent is comical.
Speak for yourself, i like ‘low entertainment’
This is getting out of hand, now there are two of them.
Christopher is no longer with us sadly.
@@jimmynich4791 always two there are, a master, and an apprentice. No more no less.
And now there is only about one hundreth of them
@@jimmynich4791 how come?
@@jerrylion45 He died of cancer a few years ago.
*insert all jokes about how Hitchens definitely won*
Which Hitchens? I’m so confused to much brains to many Hitchens
Saber
Oh, nice seeing you again
YT algorithm...
lol
420 blaze it oh shoot what’s up? 😂
Oh dear
Hey you trippin’ bro? Hitchens wiped the floor with him!
My condolences to Peter on the loss of his brother. I expect he is very proud of him and the immense contribution he made to humanity. Both brothers were very brave to undertake this debate and we are all the better for it.
@Invesigator 2 He contributed to humanity because the OP agrees with him.
@Invesigator 2 'Original poster'. I was on the phone app and it doesn't let you leave the message without discarding it - I used OP as I wasn't able to see their username.
Which contribution might that be?
@@MadCapMag Poorly constructed arguments and drug addiction maybe?
every comment section theres always one
The exchange about Kipling, wow. Peter selected a quote for the debate then messed it all up and Christopher recited it from memory. What an amazing mind. We need him back desperately.
This was definitely the best Hitchens debate. Not only was there twice the Hitchens, but the back and fourth was great.
I preferred the front and third.
Yeah dude, this one got so personal the heat felt like a playoff game or a wrestling pay per view. They waited their whole lives for this it seems lmao. Either way, this was Christopher’s peak in my opinion, he was just too dangerous in the 2000’s throughout his 50’s. His experience, wisdom, and eloquence is just inspiring. I don’t know if I really buy him as a philosopher, but as a journalist, a contrarian, and as an essayist he is just too splendidly dangerous. Love this man
Christopher says just because something is untamable does not mean we should not strive for it, and in the same breath calls the golden rule evil because it's untamable. The selective logic masked by wit and a British accent is comical.
I liked the diagonal and seventh.
@@B90-y6n , nobody who had wisdom would have liked Tony Blair then or since, let alone never renounce the invasion of Iraq.
This is like when me and my brother argue except the intellectualism and wit is replaced with profanities and fists.
Too funny 😍😍😍
Same. I bet they did when they were younger.
what a reply , excellent ,
Here's what ya do - Get him down then give him the death of 1000 pokes .. finish up with some Indiana Jones Temple of doom style ' Kali maa ' 'KALI MAAAA' .. works every time 😉✌️ 🤠
@@7star7storm7 He brings a knife, I bring a gun. He puts one of mine in the hospital, I put one of his in the morgue.
I would have loved to see them debate the issues of today. Can you imagine.
It’d be a very one sided conversation nowadays
Oh yea Trump vs Biden.... Peter is still alive I wonder if he has commented on it.
They would have nothing to debate about with each other, since Christopher would agree with Peter on all the basic liberal enlightenment principles that are being debated about and that the illiberal left wants to take away now.
@@JesusFriedChrist I don't know, many liberals have shifted their view of libertarianism as wrong in morals. Some liberals (not through political parties) such as Stephen Fry have debated current political correctness issues and have condemned how the left attack the right with what they think, but in the same breath they cry free speech. So I think, like Fry, Hitchens would be on the fence with it
@@FarmingFiasco If you think Christopher Hitchens would be on the fence about anything, I don't think you have read his work. If he is knowledgable about a topic, he usually has an interesting take.
This is the first I'm learning of Peter's existence, crazy. It's wild how similar they are in their mannerisms, like body language, verbal cadence and everything. This was cool to stumble upon.
Peter is kind of a weird puritan though. He seems to attract a pretty big audience of white supremacists as well
@@RogueAstro85 interesting... Yeah like I said I wasn't aware of him before this but I'm a big fan of Christopher and was somewhat surprised by how vehemently opposed Peter was to his outlook on religion. Just wasn't expecting it from the sibling of one of the most famous modern atheists. But then of course blood relation doesn't at all necessarily entail agreement on such matters. That's a shame, they must be like polar opposites in that regard.
Those are literally the only things they have in common, apart from being related I mean.
They’re both insufferable scumbags but they’re very entertaining
Christopher, for me, is a great deal more charming and engaging. Peter is a goofy prick!
Never gets old, I wish Hitch was still here to fight back the current and worsening political climate.
He's got more things on his mind these days.
We need him now more than ever
@@figandcassis Someone to believe in? A little ironic don't you think?
He might like earn that atheism never pays as her French revolution Chickens always come home to roost.
@joust strachan let's hope Hitch is watching from Purgatory where some aspiring saint is beating him with a copy of Mit Brenende Sorge
I thought this was like "Joe Rogan vs Roe Jogan".
Omg same here, I knew of them individually but didn’t know they were brothers !
Joe Rogan has about as
Much intellect as Hitchens foreskin.
darsh ᥲn it’s self explanatory reallly. Watch any debate from hitchens vs a questionnaire by Rogan.
They’re oceans apart in terms of intelligence.
@@Technicallyimright intellect is about reasoning and understanding not about "questionnaire". Yeah..Christopher Hitchens is far from perfect but don't underestimate/overestimate a man because of his beliefs.
@@Technicallyimright Thank you. I find any comparison of Joe Rogan to a public intellectual as laughable. Joe is Oprah for men.
I was brought up by a Father who was an atheist, a fine man of immense moral attituded without being punitive. A n incredibly kind yet firm man, who said we "each of us make our own spiritual way" because he had no right to impose , but had the right to give us his opinion for us to consider. What a man.
No actual moral value because atheists don't believe in moral absolutes.
@@vitorroque6298 Just very few; we don't care about homosexuality, fish on Friday, cheeseburgers, forced circumcision, etc.
@@Firstmiddlelastfml atheists know instinctively right from wrong, as most 6 year olds do.
@@Firstmiddlelastfml me too.
@@vitorroque6298 Every moral imperative is theoretically absolute, I.e. categorical. If an imperative is not categorical, and it is hypothetical, then it is not strong enough to be moral. According to the principle of universalizability the ethical person has as an ultimate ethic value the one which at the same time he can wish it is a universal law. This is regardless of religion. Of course this model is too simplistic because we haven't axiomatized reasoning and morality. That said, being absolute is rarely a good choice I'm everyday situations, yet it is something religious people tend to do all the time.
I've only just recently discovered this. It's probably one of the best debates I have ever seen.
This is probably the most eloquent and messy debate I've ever seen.
Less eloquent and more loquacious.
Messy? Yes. Eloquent? Only in parts. Infernal whistling from Peter’s sibilant s’s? Interminably so.
Eh. If anything, I find it charming to see them not engage in a serious debate all the time.
Their family reunion topics.
Pass the potatoes vs not passing the potatoes.
Begin.
The debate is irrelevant when one us able to get the potatoes of their own will and abilities.
;}
One simply cannot bring such a topic to the table so to speak. For such a controversial thing must be kept to the work at hand and simply not to the public.
Just kidding, pass em
The question is were the potatoes created in the garden by a gardener who designed a vegetable patch, gave the potatoe life by planting a seed and giving it an environment to thrive in. Or, did they appear on the table randomly by chance and no one knows how or why they got there (since the rest of the meal is mac and cheese).
Pass the potatoes. So long as they aren't asserted by you to be contingent to the passing over my reaching for them.
Imperialist regime change war and the destabilization of the globe are hardly on par with potatoes.
Christopher has the arguments that make me question my position on Iraq in some ways. Very free thinking man. We should all question our beliefs no matter how certain we are of them.
It is a point I can never be able to quite fully commit to meeting him on, but nevertheless atleast he was consistent and did not flip flop or backtrack on it, and as my grandad used to say 'If we were all the same, the world would be a boring shithole'.
Iraqi kurd here, they're both right i guess you can put it into four things
1- Did the regime have to go? Yes, was it vile and cruel ? Yes did it do everything chris said? Yes(also was looking to develop a nuclear program)
2- it was the right thing to do for the right reasons but ill reasons existed as well(war time presidents are popular and do get re elected, and a new land filled with oil and a new nation that the private industry can use to profit from, the military industrial complex) to name some.
3- do the means justify the ends? Yes and no, many wrongs were made in the process that never needed to happen.
4- and fourth which i think is the distinction that nobody cares about it. It's about the why and the how and afterwards. The new iraq was a weak corrupt government filled with greedy politicians popular idiots. The economy was left dead all the soldiers were fired(i think you can tell how they felt or what ex militaries do when let go(malitias).)
The man you see next to bush when he gets a shoe thrown at him is nuri Maliki prime minister at the time he tried to dismantle parliament twice during his administration billions of dollars would just disappear off of the records using the office for personnel gain and for his allies.
So much of the problems of todays iraq don't come from taking down Saddam and the fascist regime but how the new iraq was recreated. So many of which couldve been avoided but that takes time and money and support and dedication and simply it was much easier to give power to powerful families and tribes to rule and pretend iraq is fixed.
I hope This isn't too long but it's my two cents
The difference between Christopher and most of the rest of us is that he took the time to read and understand the entirety of the context of things like Iraq. It's so easy to listen to a few sound bites and think you know enough to have an opinion on something.
While I agree with Christopher's assertions about Saddam's regime needing to go, I still have to be against the way the war played out and the aftermath, because, at least to my understanding, Iraq was not left in a very good state after, to say the least.
I disagreed with christopher on almost every topic, but free thinking and questioning your fundamental beliefs every so often is very important. Questioning can be scary in the short term. It's more comfortable to live on automatic pilot and remain gleefully sure of your beliefs.
I have had more than a few existential crises as a result of my questioning, but in the long term it either strengthens my position, or gives me new insight and understanding into a subject. Either way, I am better off for it. Many people are taught not to question religious beliefs. Some sects discourage any questioning and make it seem like you are sinning to ask, which of course isn't true. People who have never questioned their religious/spiritual beliefs really have very little faith. They're afraid to question because they are afraid their beliefs will be broken down. And they will be, but they will be rebuilt better and stronger than ever in the long run. If the doctrine you believe in can't stand up to questions, it isn't worth believing.
Such fantastic orators, so glad these moments were recorded forever!
Amen. The level and quality of the discourse of this generation of "public intellectuals" was so much higher than what we have today.
not forever, as Christopher said, in 5 billion years a big crush is inevetable with Andromeda Galaxy :D
I was hoping to see Christopher debate himself and punch himself in the face when it got heated up .
Christopher says just because something is untamable does not mean we should not strive for it, and in the same breath calls the golden rule evil because it's untamable. The selective logic masked by wit and a British accent is comical.
Yes, the sophistry is through the roof.
I've watched dozens of debates with Christopher Hitchens, and this is my absolute favorite because it is so personal for both of them. They're entertained by each others' jabs, and the chemistry is perfect. Some debates get my blood boiling. This one is different. Despite the differing opinions, you can sense a mutual respect and even camaraderie between the two.
Peter always said while they arrived at different destinations, they always had the same dis-likes, which mainly was phoniness.
Richard Jones peter said in an interview some time ago, that this debate was a miserable experience for him. He felt that he was in an auditorium of people who worshipped Christopher and, as you’ll have noticed, he’ was relatively unengaged and became more so as the debate proceeded. They did another debate, which he enjoyed much more, but I’m not sure if it’s on TH-cam.
I am awfully fond of Christopher Hitchens, but there are times when he is painfully obnoxious. An attitude is not an argument.
Its like the debate version of the movie Warrior (or Brothers?) with Joel Edgerton and Tom Hardy
they truly hated each other
Yeah you could just feel the romantic tension between the both of them.
imagine family reunions at their house :)
Hahahahah
The wine runs dry but not the conversation :P
Richard Seed Hi. Is his book, Hitch 22, his autobiography?
I would have given anything to have sat at a dinner with these two.
constantdoodle Your laughter at the fact that it is said that mother Hitchens killed herself is extremely offensive and unbelievably insensitive. Your post should be taken down unless you apologise immediately.
I came to the party late and I regret missing Christopher Hitchins live, but I am grateful for so many debates that continue to be posted after his very sad death.
So you regret missing him lie and waffle live? Why would you regret that?
@@Saber23 what lies exactly? Just curious
@@Saber23 what an embarrassing response. The man put his money where his mouth was when it came to helping people, and he didn’t need the promise of everlasting life. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself, coward.
@@Sydafexx7 🧟♂️
Same
I’ve watched Christopher for years but had no idea of his brother. Crazy to think there were two of these fellows. Giants in the intellectual world.
His brother doesn't even reach his ankles.
One giant. One much smaller much less impressive imp standing in that giant's shadow
@@stizzylank6684 , you Christopher groupies are so embarrassing.
Christopher Hitchens an INTELLECTUAL? He was merely an entertainer and obfuscator, about as deep as a mud puddle.
that's how the class structure works in the UK. Those from the "well to do" families rise very easily. Independent schools, followed by Oxford, followed by a lauded career.
Not so easy for the rest of the population.
The 'debate' between the brothers in the bar afterwards would have been even more interesting.
i don t think peter drinks.christopher does that for both of them.
@@teknoaija1762 Did... he died of cancer in 2012
@@scobra5941 he did.that type of cancer he died of is often related to heavy smoking and even heavier alcohol usage.christopher managed to quit smoking in his later years but drinking remained.he confessed in an interview that his wife called him a functioning alcoholic.johnny walker black label was his weapon of choice.
@@teknoaija1762 People who have neither smoked nor drunk die of the same Cancer every day of the week.
@@mjh5437 i m still waiting to hear your point....
I don't have a problem with some people mocking Christianity. But I am disgusted by the blatant hypocrisy and double standard, when the same people are defending Islam. This is suspicious and deeply troubling.
I'm is because Christians have no command to kill the infidel.
bulldogsbob they did though. May not be plastered all over the Bible like it is in the Quran. But yes it’s in the Bible
Absolutely you can mock and ridicule Christianity. But when you do the same to Islam you are labeled islamaphobic
@Jimmi K While I agree with your sentiments about Islam, I wonder if you would describe yourself as a misanthrope...?
islamophobe.....your racist, bigoted hate speech will not go unpunished.
This was one of those debates I didn't wish to end
This debate is still legendary today
This was almost 10 years ago and i still really enjoyed that!
April 3, 2008 is date of debate. Published here in 2011.
'That'? ... enjoyed it
Ten years is nothing, go back further, the debates are majestic by comparison.
Well you're not going to find a Christopher Hitchens debate from much less than 10 years ago
@@Lawful_Rebel I have and I agree with u
I don't know about you, but when I watched this in 2011 I was impressed by Christopher, but watching again this last year makes me appreciate Peter a lot more than I did then.
Here he is really elocuent, I still think Christopher is clearly a better debater and public speaker. Said that, Have you seen his recent takes on LGBT, COVID and drugs? what a clown.
First time viewing this debate, I found when it came religion, Peter focused more on disputing the reputability of Chris on this issue instead of focusing on the topic. Iraq is a big gray area, would be much clearer what was right wrong if we were completely aware of alternate timelines. But we aren't, and all we know is how things singularly happened.
You can see by Peter Hitchens reaction to part of Christopher's dialogue the deep admiration he has for his brother. Although they have different opinions on many things this debate was a meeting of great minds.
yes,i saw that too.he smiles and laughs in all the right moments so i think they share same sense of humor.
Very well pointed out, I had the very same emotion when I watched Peter watch his brother, priceless and a great admiration indeed!!!👌
Peter was once an atheist as well, so it could be him laughing because its what he would have said in the past. But, it's likely some combination of that and what you suggested.
This is one of the GREATEST DEBATES I have ever viewed in my life. Extraordinary.
Brothers… we all debate.
Christopher says just because something is untamable does not mean we should not strive for it, and in the same breath calls the golden rule evil because it's untamable. The selective logic masked by wit and a British accent is comical.
Copying and pasting the same idiotic, nonsensical comment on every comment thread just puts your own stupidity on full display for all to see. Knock it off.
Every statement made was common sense. 😅. I ain't even an intellectual and I know both sides of the argument.
@@raz6630 you have misunderstood the point.
He was talking about attaining the truth, because as unattainable as it might seem, you should strive for it because as a concept there is a chance you might find it, it isn't be definition unattainable. That is in direct contrast to the evil he talks about because that was by its very design made to be unattainable, and for good reason, because it's made that way to be prevent you prevailing over it and seeing it for what it is.
I don't know why these two remind me of Mycroft and Shelrock.
Now that you said it, they do.
Which do think is big bro Mycroft
@@abdiganisugal825 Christopher is Sherlock and Peter is Mycroft.
Yes, now that you brought it up, I totally agree!
@@ahlishaholloway233 yes, exactly
I completely agree
Woah! Peter's voice and mannerisms are identical to his brother.
Which one?
FPS Peter only had one brother.
@@Zachd500 twas a jest
FPS not a very good one considering he used his first name.
@@Zachd500 its a good joke.
"Since travelling to other countries".
One of the best point peter made about Iraq. Anyone making a statement about war who haven't experienced it is weakened.
To just see and hear the two brothers in debate is a wonderful intellectual pleasure.
I can't stop looking at how the line in the top of the chair, lines up perfectly with the wall tile grout line.
Thanks, now I can't unsee it
Do you reckon it was planned
Reletively speaking, if the camera was higher or lower, they wouldn't.
Incredible.
OCD?
Their most striking common denominator is their respective strong characters :)
Of course, Christopher was something special...
You're special
@@thereisnosanctuary6184 thanks
@@niamhoconnor8986 dont care 4 atheist siht, agree with august ur special though
The Hitchens showed us that just because we disagree it doesn't mean I hate you , we need more people like them in this world
Yeah they hated eachother
For a time, their relationship was rocky but then they reconciled.
Sorry about Christopher passing.
I feel the Christianity debate was unfair. Jesus spoke against religion. Many 'churches' have nothing to do with Christianity.
@@mariabarrientos4171 ffs 🙄 use your head.
@@Sharetheroad3333 your response is both malicious and pathetic.
I'm not religious either, and I disagree with the position of the person who you responded to. However you should have the decency to not needlessly insult people, not to mention doing so while failing to even make a counterargument.
Truly odious stuff.
Timeless glorious conversation , praise to both for being free to talk, honest and civilized to discuss human issues with decorum and dignity. 10 out of 10..Cicero and Demosthenes would have been proud of their oratorial skills.
Pretentious much, bud
are you slow or what?
Two intellectual heavyweights. Sad Christopher is no longer with us. I often wonder what he would make of these crazy times.
+Jeffrey it's pretty obvious. you think he'd be happy about wearing a mask
@@boliussa lol. No definitely not. I do enjoy listening to Peter Hitchens on talk radio on a Monday. Not quite the same I know but a voice of reason nonetheless.
@@jeffreyreeves5524 you probably just like the pomposity
His world is pretty much here now .
He's in the afterlife laughing his bollox off😂😂
I imagine that Christopher annoyed and taunted his little brother when growing up. Peter is obviously fed up with his big brother.
Jealous of him anyway, it isn't hard to see which brother got all the brains :D
@Tut J'wandian by far what? Did you even listen to his babble? :D name one valid he made that in anyway aided the debate and isn't just spewing fallacies, just one
@Tut J'wandian still waiting for you to mention one valid point he made that wasn't babble or a fallacy
@Tut J'wandian I must first do nothing :) but OK, argument from ignorance, now go ahead should be easy after all according to you everything he said demonstrates what a superior intelligence he has so, I'm waiting or are you going to carry on delaying
Wyn Williams Pretty sure you haven’t heard the philosophical proofs for the existence of God such as: The 5 Cosmological Arguments, Aristotellian act & potency, the impossibility of infinite regress.
The most common is “Who made God!?!? CHECK MATE!!! ATHEIST 1-0”
It’s the most foolish objection and the most ignorant objection against Classical Theism, it’s self-evident that the objection is invalid.
“The Universe is infinite! Checkmate!”
Infinite regress is actually impossible according to the premises of how infinite regress isn’t possible. *Members are dependent on other members, continue this to infinity, no member is in and of itself of that property, therefore X didn’t happen.***
“The Universe is a necessary being!”
This simply isn’t the case because in order for something to not be contingent, it must be eternal, must be immutable, unchanging, uncaused.
A tragedy we no longer have this very intelligent man Christopher Hitchens.
But intelligence employed for evil, debauchery, nihilism and just plain meaness...that l'd rather be without.
@@jamesmangold7563 Agreed - thank you for the clarity
What a fantastic privilege to see the 2 brothers . debate..... Respect to
Both.... They both share a common sense and advocates of oratory
Excellence even though on different sides of the debate.
. RIP christopher... you gave much to our world...
Hitchens is unbearable (no wonder Hitchens fell out with him).
Doom is not amused.
Clever. :-)
I thought Hitchens arguments were more eloquent and informed then Hitchens was.
TibusHeth Ha ha! Nice comment!
A bit off topic: 1:09:03 bitch on the left is fine.
I love it that both brothers are on equal footing with different ideals. Both make very fantastic good points!
Peter starts to quote a Kiplin poem, apparently he thought of it in advance of the debate to help his argument.. An obscure poem so forgettable Peter forgets how it goes, so he goes through his notes, then just gives up and just wings it. Chris walks to the podium and gives the full and correct quote to help Peter, who had totally messed it up. Chris just pulled it from that massive library in his head. Agree with his positions or not, the man had a memory like an elephant.
In Peter's defence he was quite flummoxed in this debate and has owned up to that fact.
Christopher Hitchens hated being called 'Chris'.
Christopher: “Christopher.”
@@sreeharidamodaran82 And why should I care? I'm not writing him a letter. Plus he is dead. So he don't care what you call him either.
@@davebunnell1105 It's just a small gesture of respect. No need to be stupidly hostile about it.
Christopher had a deep knowledge of the facts and a memory like an elephant. A fantastic debater.
I miss him dearly. We lost a great British treasure the day Christopher passed, i know our American cousins and the Nation he called home also must miss him dearly.
I think you mean "World Treasure".
@@kiwitrainguy Doubt they mean much to the non-Anglo world.
I have only come to this 11 years after it took place, that said, the subject of debate and the arguments put forward are just as relevant today.
Peter spoke about this years after and said he hated it. he was under the impression he'd be attending a casual, small attended debate and he was looking forward to it. He was shocked to see the crowd and how many were Christopher fanboys.
He was probably just disappointed to realize that his dumb and tired religious apologism and science denialism doesn't generate as many ardent fanboys as his brother's sharp intellectualism.
@@MikkoVille You obviously know absolutely nothing about the man. He’s very much used to being on the outside of the mainstream and revels in it, in fact he excels when he’s up against it.
@@tomben6180 Sorry, fan boy. His tired ol' religious apologism failed. He's a failure.
@@MikkoVille I’m pretty sure it’s Peter’s brother that only has “fanboys”. I actually disagree with a lot of things he says but you mischaracterise him and I’m pulling that up.
What’s your problem with his religious beliefs? He isn’t out trying to convert people, he isn’t a mouthpiece or recruiter for the Church of England. He just answers questions on it when asked and states his position.
What is your problem with that exactly?
@@wack8697 What “incorrect beliefs” does Peter profit them spreading then? I cannot wait to hear this.
I’m a theist but my god, I love Christopher. Recently discovered Peter and cherish his work as well!
Why? The man is a neocon cretin.
@@mrquestion72 sorry, do you want to specify which Hitchens you are talking about ?
@@jonfromtheuk467 Christopher
EepOpOrk why do you use God’s name in vain??
@@Jesus_Saves_66 Do you think the supposed creator of the universe actually minds? I think god is just a man made concept so for me its a non issue anyhow but even so.....
Christopher had the advantage of having much of the audience behind him from the start, and the advantage of his charisma. In these circumstances Peter can't win.
SepticSceptic Based on the applause and questions from the audience, I don't agree with this at all
Well he’s dead now
@@2003Rooney More like worship.
@@2003Rooney LOL nice wording. Idolize huh. We resepct and admire him. Idols exists in your fairy tale. Unless you mean the second definition if idol which is respect, admiration and revered. And that is true. Be careful with your wording.
@@Jw-un8oh "We"? Speaking as a collective? Be careful with your wording. Lmao like if the former part of your statement wasn't supposed to be a setup for the fairy-tail jab... You arent smart, you're just a loser
I remember as i grew up how I would enter into debates like this, in these darker times you can't express opinions without being demonised. What a terrible culture we are developing. It is so valuable in being able to ecpress polarised views to get to a point of moderation, and being respected for being open and strong enough to change your views in the light of better evidence. Less tribal agreement with powerful leaders. Much more about seeking powerful reasoning and testing ideas against the oposite view. We used to be given topics at school and have to put forward an argument, not our own standpoint, but often the opposite view. This was a very helpful discipline when learning anything.
Couldn't agree more. I can't understand how there isn't more people that see it that way. Baffles me. I am not married to any opinion enough to deny factual evidence. You should change your perception based on evidence.
Christopher would be so disappointed by how Iraq and Afghanistan was handled and left to their own devices. The betrayal our governments committed to those people is unforgivable.
Peter's S's are sending all my neighborhood's dogs into a barking frenzy.
As soon as I read your comment I started hearing it. Thank you!
There should have been a de-esser on the mixing board. When he says "circumcision" it's really bad.
How clever. Would you like to say something original now?
@@MadCapMag Show me the plagiarism?
That’s awesome I’m outside too
Niles and Frasier have come a long way
I had the same Frasier-Niles comparison in my head but see that you beat me to this video and awesome observation. Rats!!! lol
Martin keeps them in line
This..
Except, Niles was actually quite clever...
I feel for their parents. It must have been hard to see their two only sons arguing all the time.
I have a feeling they were very proud of both of their brilliant sons.
Probably were not arguing all the time
It's very hard to choose my favourite Hitchens debate, but this has to be one of the best. Miss you Hitch!
This was *FANTASTIC!!* I am just so sorry Dr. Christopher Hitchens is no longer with us. What a huge loss to humanity and collective intelligence.
I thought humanity has no ending, lol.
Professor
Dr.?
He just had a BA degree
No doctor. He only had a ba in PPE.
At first when I read the video title my first thought was, “They had this type of meme all the way back in 2008?”
Hitchens for the win!
It was a very close debate, but I think Hitchens won.
*That has been said, a 1,000 Times Already You Idiot!!!!*
I don't think it was close at all
@@geekypleer1202 So you really think hitchens won??
@@Lord_Thistlewick_Flanders Huh, no. I think Hitchens had a weak point on every topic that was brought up. Hitchens, however, provided impressive insights that I found to be profoundly useful.
I met both Hitchens and Dawkins, you might think their personality in writing mirror the same as in person, I found it to be the opposite. Dawkins was demanding and attention seeking, while Hitchens was down to earth and not bothered by the trivial matters in life, which others seem to take as their replacement for religion. It saddened me greatly that Chris seemed taken from us so quickly.
I think it's obvious that Dawkins is a douche by watching his intellectual interactions. Hitchens was always much more gracious. Even though I don't agree with him on religion, I agree with him on many other things. He was much more intellectual than Dawkins.
Yes but that's exactly the problem of live and let live mentality. It often leaps into r-selected habits like drinking and smoking. Maybe Dawkins is a bit of prick but sometimes that stems of actually having demands in life and not accepting whatever comes your way.
Though it is nice to know that Hitchens was a nice guy in person. And you can see that a lot in these speeches, he just happens to get annoyed by perceived hypocrisies.
@@tanakanaoshi4769 Well, I think you can be opinionated, have certain demands, and be discriminating without being a prick.
I`m sure Dorkins will be gutted to be with God now 😇🤣
Both of these men are great because they at least argue their point and attempt to educate their audience so they can make a decision. It’s a much more elegant way of persuasion vs the current climate of emotion and rage.
The liberation of Iraq "will stand, I am convinced, as one of the greatest decisions of American statecraft".
Today, I think we now know who won the debate
Slightly different face, identical mannerisms.
Both have beautiful voices.
Christopher is prettier, has more brains and charisma, more passion and sense of humor....
*I Agree with God-Hating Christ Hitch on the Irak War!!!!*
*I am OPPosed to Peter Eater Hitch, on BOTH Counts!!!!*
*I (an Agnostic BeLiever in JeHoVah GOD) would Prefer NO GOD*
*rather than the DeMonic EVIL VILE PeterEater god of the PeterEater!*
*Robert Robertson; Center street; SaLem, Oregon*
🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫 🔫 🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫🔫 🔫🔫
And diametrically opposed conclusions.
@@americanmartyr9268 what did Peter's God do to you
Never heard the Iraq war described in a way such as Christopher. Thank you PBD for the recommendation
This is fantastic ... thanks for posting this.
So sorry they cannot reprise this debate.
Tip for any person moderating a debate...always say "provocative" multiple times, and "We are here to discuss the most important question/ one of the most important questions"... finally, if you think you've used the word "provocative" enough, you haven't, say it again.
Pro tip!
I laughed so hard after the statement Peter made starting at 45:01 and people clapped for it, then Christopher was shocked and told them to stop that. Lol. I miss Christopher.
😂😂🤣
It's so funny.
I understand that the Hitchens brothers' mother died some decades ago, but if the father lived long enough to be alive during the time of this debate I hope he was proud that two of his sons became such influential and well spoken men.
I think he'd be ashamed that his son was a homosexual deviant
1:09:10 I've never seen peter hitchens almost flamboyant! 🤣
Christopher’s “bye now” at the end of his opening remarks gets me every time
The bullshit of the century? Religion I see now why you don’t pay taxes! Because you love money doing nothing..
The snark!
The best part of it all 😂
I think they must have had a great education at home since they're siblings but have completely different ideas.
"As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another." I see at least ONE of the reasons for Christopher's sharp intellect. He has had a person in his life with whom he has disagreed with for decades. That makes any person very learned in any subject. I love it. Shout out to Peter man. Love these brothers.
Everyone who says “I’m sure they argued like this growing up” forgets that Peter was a Marxist when he was young
Or perhaps just listened to Peter in his introduction.
@@jockmcfrog3747 i think they both were.
@@phillipjohnson209 self confessed.
Its usual to dismiss fairy tales when you enter adulthood.
@@rnw2739 sure... thatswhy most of the people of the earth are still religious ....
Both perspectives are strong and valid but having the luxury of Retrospect we should have left Iraq well alone militarily.
The same goes of course for Libya but we indeed Sowed The Wind.
RIP Christopher and Long Live Peter. Two giants of debate and so proud of both these Great Britons.
Bet Peter misses his favourite sparring partner
I seem to be the only one to point out that, as with all men, rivalry is measured in terms of sexual success - clearly the older brother, both brilliant and a beauty from an early age, both worshipped, hated and envied by the younger, who, though an achiever in his own right (although naturally competitive in the same field) exudes lack of success with the ladies. Unfair?
Linnet Asquith well Peters happily married,Freud. It’s not all about sex that’s your mind not everyone’s necessarily
Linnet Asquith Any statement that begins with “all men” that is not a medical fact is probably false and outrageously sexist. That tip I’ll give you for free
@@linnetasquith9188 You've been on the Jordan Peterson for too long....
Here I am in 2023 still finding this fascinating. I tend to agree more with the Christopher side of the Hitchens family but really enjoy hearing both sides expressed very well. Listen to both and make up your own mind is the key.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall at that family's holiday dinner table.
While I’m on Peter’s side, I enjoyed seeing the sibling rivalry between him and Christopher.
These are my distant cousins but I have never seen Christopher before. Have met Peter once, and I understand and agree with his points more than Christopher's. He seemed rather mixed up to me. I wonder how he feels about it now he has met his maker?
Hitchens is my favorite of the two. He's always spot-on. He has a way of explaining things that his brother does not. Would you not agree?
no
Which Hitchens?
@@slimturnpikeHitchens, of course. Y'know, the one with the accent.
@@HOTD108_ both have the accent XD
I agree - which Hitchens? 😂
I’m so sorry that when I asked myself about my belief Christopher is no longer with us. This man made my life moment happier many times
when i first saw this thumbnail i thought it was one of those meme videos like where jordan peterson argues with himself
Lol
Solid Hitch Vs Liquid Hitch
LOL
Comment of the comment's section.
Hahahahah
This will always go horribly underrated!
Les Enfants Terribles
I miss hearing Hitchens’ voice.
Lucky we have TH-cam.
He knows the Truth now. So much empty rhetoric. Delusional tryna say communism and bolveshik were religious. Dude never has any answer just bitches all the time.
@@gman4074 and the 'Truth' is what?
I miss the depth and necessity of him.
Whether I agree with him or not...
He’s still around the good one that is
Wow. So bold by Peter. He literally refused to debate it with Christopher. He plainly called him out on the circular argument he ever used. The refusal to identify human evil and depravity is a very sad fault that is ultimately willful blindness.
Absolutly wonderful to hear a debate with substance and speakers with integretty
Tegridy Farms
Someone (SHOULD!!!) make a film about this man's life. That would be a block buster that everyone would definitely watch and love 😍
Which one?
💯💯💯
@@timsplanet2 Christopher
I’m interested in Peter’s story.
It could be a biography on BOTH men in the SAME movie.
Hopefully better than the one done with Hawking.
Didn't know that there was a brother, and initially thought that Christopher would debate ... himself! A wonderful occasion to witness this repartee, and regret again Christopher's early departure from the world of the living!
Excellent, very old school - people arguing rationally with a bit of intelligent and witty crosstalk. Now imagine such a debate on a modern campus …
@@LukasOfTheLight ?
@@LukasOfTheLight weird
Although I agree with him on most of these topics, I find Christopher Hitchens hard to love in this debate - witty, sure, but also a bully and a show-off.
Also, quite the drama queen as well. "You owe me an apology" he says to an audience member.
He comes across as narcissistic. Whereas Peter seems to be a voice of reason.
He seems only to consider how right he is without considering how effective he is
@@charlesknowlton7198 apologies are overated.
@@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543You my friend are one of the many burdens to society. While I refuse to exempt myself from this category I’m not the one willfully ignorant of the evident effect of my ideology. Goodnight God bless.
Iraq should have
been left alone full stop. Its worse now than ever.
You say that because you're ignorant.
Saddam was no different to Hitler, except in scale - and less Iraqis have died per year since his departure, than before it.
There should be no place on Earth for filth like Saddam - just how do you argue otherwise?
Steve Brown Britain had been screwing with Iraq since the 40s to keep their oil supply good. Iranian revolution in the 80s caused directly by the US and Britain again out of their desire to acquire nature resources from the Middle East, pretty much created the environment for Iraq to invade Iran. Pretty much the west tried to dominate the Middle East and keep them weak whilst stealing their resources until their was massive backlash. Yes I agree Saddam is a P.O.S but US/UK helped created him and the hostility in the Middle East.
@@bridgenorton537
Are you a left wing moron? The revolution was caused by Islamists - the vilest ideology on Earth after Leftism.
You have a Left Wing view of reality - ie complete fantasy.
You've not addressed anything I said about Saddam. All you've done is try to blame the west for it. Pathetic.
@Dear dad
You're thicker than crude oil.
He gassed 180, 000 Kurds that were his people. He tortured and killed many thousands more.
You live in a fantasy land of ignorance.
@@stevebrown4900 Thick as a brick. Even worse than a Marxist and probably even more brainwashed.
omg, a Hitchens debate I haven't seen! *grabs popcorn*
Would loved to have seen Christopher hit the podcast circuit of today. So many potential great conversations could have been had with Peterson, Rogan, Freidman, etc
I have a feeling he would have seen through Peterson’s guru schtick - and more particularly the religious grift he’s peddling at the moment. He may have shown solidarity with him and his cause when he first came to public attention regarding free speech in Canada.
Can see him getting on with Rogan though.
@@Alex-mj5dvi can almost hear him say "if that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do", in his golden sarcastic tone at Peterson's failure at answering the question "Do you believe in God".
just watched the whole thing (again after several years gap) and i'm now convinced the CH believed he lost this debate - he must have been aware that some of his debating points were simple retorical tricks and the fact that he was unprepared to concede on anything gives an air of desperation in his tone.
I think he more saw it as entertainment than a football game.
If you mean his convictions to rational thought then I agree.