Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry vs. The Catholics

It wasn't fair really since they not only had Fry and Hitchens but an apparently sober Hitchens at that.

Also Ann Widi**** rolls her eyes when the whole organized rape of children and the church's role of spreading HIV in africa thing is brought up then makes no attempt to comment or justify either of them.
 
Have Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens done more to better other people's lives than that Archbishop? Surely a group's leaders are representative of the whole. The Church is an institution which has made and will carry out atrocities on many scales, much like any other organization with a lot of power and influence. However, the main philosophy behind the Catholic Church is genuinely that of spreading goodwill and fortune to the world. Unlike some other organizations. Also, there's NO denying the fact that the Catholic Church has helped shape Europe (and the entire Western World) into what it is today.

Whether it has over-stayed its welcome though? I think it has, yeah.
 
Excellent debate, thank you Harryz.

Just for the tl;dl group:
Before the debate (Is the Catholic church a force for good):
For: 678
Against: 1,102
Undecided: 346

After the debate:
For: 268 (A change of -410)
Against: 1,876 (A change of +774)
Undecided: 34
 
The mission of the catholic church isn't to spread good will. The mission of the catholic church is to get more members.
 
lefty said:
The mission of the catholic church isn't to spread good will. The mission of the catholic church is to get more members.
Click to expand...

To get more members you need to do some good or accomplish something though.
 
Dax said:
To get more members you need to do some good or accomplish something though.
Click to expand...

Yes, after they realized that torture and the like didn't have as good a yield.
 
this is going to be a massacre!!! WHERE'S MY POPCORN!!??
 
lame-o said:
Also, there's NO denying the fact that the Catholic Church has helped shape Europe (and the entire Western World) into what it is today.
Click to expand...
Err... I'd say there's more than a pretty strong case for saying that the last 600 or so years of human history has a lot more to do with all the other denominations of Christianity. Regardless of what the modern churches stand for, demolishing the Catholic Church's wholesale control of Europe was the first step towards the world as we know it.
 
kupocake said:
Err... I'd say there's more than a pretty strong case for saying that the last 600 or so years of human history has a lot more to do with all the other denominations of Christianity. Regardless of what the modern churches stand for, demolishing the Catholic Church's wholesale control of Europe was the first step towards the world as we know it.
Click to expand...

^
this

and i dare anyone ti disprove it! the enlightenment started when the church began loosing it's tight grip on society. it started with those pesky reformers, the growth of trade and the leaking of knowledge outside the churches walls.
 
I'm rather surprised that so many were swayed to the against vote. While the opposition speakers made several points, I thought they did it in an awful way, full of anger and spite. I would have guessed that would turn people off the notion. Plus I didn't like the arbiter being so obviously biased, saying things to the "for" speakers like "you're going to have a hard time" and "make your final pitch" As if the entire thing was a sales pitch for the church. The argument could be made that it was, but its poor form for a arbiter to make such an assumption. Same with saying "I'm sorry" when they got the results in for the second vote. Its not her place to be sorry or happy for anyone, shes just reading the results.

I also would have liked a back and forth style debate where one could make a point and the others could make counter points. All in all, I am disappointed in the debate.
 
Anne Widdecombe is ANNOYING THE *** OUT OF ME. The mumbling African bishop isn't helping the Catholic cause either, but he gets better during the debate (still watching it atm). Christopher Hitchens was a bit too on the offensive for my taste. I liked the velvet glove approach of Stephen Fry a lot better. His speech was oratory bliss. I had goosebumps at the end.
 
Harryz said:
Cheers for the link. Theres a new one up: 'Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?', panelists include Dawkins/Grayling vs. Harries/Moore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyUkI7dRlg8&feature=related
Click to expand...

That was a much better debate I think. The arbiter seemed biased still, though not so much as the last, but he seemed rather inept at the task of mediating the debate. The debate itself was much less one sided though, and I think the creepy guy all the way on the left made some fair points on several occasions. Second from the left was a douche though.
 
Proper debating doesn't exist on the internet, no matter whether Intelligence^2 claims to have it or not.
 
Maestro said:
Proper debating doesn't exist on the internet, no matter whether Intelligence^2 claims to have it or not.
Click to expand...

They weren't debating on the internet...

Unless you mean "footage of a proper debate doesn't exist on the internet"
 
Krynn72 said:
They weren't debating on the internet...

Unless you mean "footage of a proper debate doesn't exist on the internet"
Click to expand...

I though the site was the host of the videos, similar to TED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
TechnoHippyChic
Star Citizen
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
BabyHeadCrab
Black Mesa is probably the best Half-Life game.
Replies
3
Views
1K
Shem
Shem
Lizardizzle
2019: The year of Half-Life SFX videos
Replies
4
Views
2K
Ennui
Ennui
TechnoHippyChic
The Many Diversions of THC's Work Lunches
Replies
3
Views
2K
TechnoHippyChic
TechnoHippyChic
Back
Top