1. Who do you think is the better arguer (not who do you agree with) 2. Give one argument from each side that is good 3. Give one argument from each side that is bad
I believe Reverend Sharpton is the better arguer (at least in this particular debate). He seems to have a better grasp of the topic (morality and religion). The examples brought up by Christopher Hitchens were non-responsive to the Reverend’s arguments.
One good argument made by Reverend Sharpton is in the absence of a higher being, there would be no basis for morality. This is a good argument because it develops a clear brightline for answering the question of the debate (can morality exist in the absence of God?). The argument forces Hitchens to tell us what the basis of a moral system would be if a higher being did not exist. This question goes unanswered by Hitchens, in my opinion.
One bad argument by Rev. Sharpton is his claim that “life has certain guiding poles” that have been established before anyone’s birth. I believe this is a bad argument because he makes the claim that morality is the same for all individuals, which is very difficult to prove. Rather, Rev. Sharpton should have said that although morality may differ from one person to another, each person’s sense of morality is derived from their religion.
One good argument made by Hitchens is that “morality is innate in us”. This is a good argument because Hitchens backs up his claim by saying that moral acts are in our self interest and the interest of society.
One bad argument by Hitchens is his claim that religion drives people to commit immoral actions. This is a bad argument because it does not really answer the question of the debate. Even if religion were to drive people to commit immoral actions, it does not mean that morality could exist in the absence of religion or a higher being.
I believe Rev. Al Sharpton holds the better argument because he seems to have a greater knowledge of the topic at hand which makes his arguments more valid and relevant. Christopher Hitchens constant use of "umm" makes him look uninformed which continues to lower his credibility and in turn makes his overall argument look less convincing.
One strong point that Rev. Al Sharpton makes is that what can morality be based off if there is no higher being to determine what is right or wrong. He then asks what would morality be based off if not a higher being. Whoever has the most power and might in the world? It's this argument that answers the debate question and gives way to if not God than what would govern morality.
One weak argument that Al Sharpton makes is when he begins to insult the other side of the argument calling them arrogant and delusional for believing their point of view. This tends to weaken his overall argument making him look less professional in the sense of debate.
One strong point that Christopher Hitchens makes is when he states that morality is innate in us and we know what’s right and what’s wrong. He strengthens this argument by saying if people had no sense of morality in them, they would do whatever they pleased and “be wolves to each other.” It’s in “our self interest to act moral” he states.
One weak statement that Hitchens makes is when he starts blaming religion for the reason why good people commit bad crimes. This argument seems to be veering away from the topic of debate and makes me believe he’s attempting to avoid the actual question.
While Reverend Sharpton asks compelling questions, I feel like Hitchens is the better arguer, and that may be because in the clip he dominates the whole 10 minutes. I don’t believe he is the best speaker, but when he rebuts he gives logical evidence. Reverend Sharpton relays a good argument in his idea that if there is no higher power, we would have to decide who decides morality, and it would be ever changing. There would be no universal law basically. Hitchens rebuts saying without God, anything is permissible. Also, with the argument to make a good person do a wicked thing, it takes religion. I think this was his best argument because he was logical in his evidence. The best example of this was when he mentions the suicide missions of Palestinians not believing their work is moral until their religion indoctrinated them to believe so. It’s presumptuous, but understandable. His worst argument was his rebuttal to Rev. Sharpton’s question “through all the history of the world, you don’t think atheists have ever done anything evil?” Hitchens then takes like 3 minutes to finally answer the question with a yes. I don’t know if he needed time to think, or if he just didn’t want to answer, but that was definitely his worst argument. I think it would have been smoother if he polished his speaking skills, I don’t think that disqualifies his ability to make a compelling argument though. Reverend Sharpton’s worst argument was in his statement “to think the world was waiting on one’s birth, your birth or my birth, to set the framework of morality, I think that is very arrogant.” I say this because it’s contradictory to the whole premise of his viewpoint. Technically, from his viewpoint on religion, the world waited on the birth of one to make a moral code.
In this particular argument I believe that the better arguer is Hitchens. He seemingly tends to have more points in which to explain his side. He doesn't have just one element to his answer and he explains his point in better ways to understand. Plus, it doesn't help that he takes the majority of the clip time up.
One argument that i believed to be pretty intriguing and compelling was Sharptons way of asking how can there be morality with out a higher power to answer to. Everything that we know in terms of morality are no longer relevant and by certain process cannot hold to be true. If we go back to what most of us learned from our parents is that someone is always watching. Like what Rev. Sharpton is implying is that we have to have some what of a higher power in order to know the difference between right and wrong. Without it then everyone would act only on their impulses instead of morals. The good argument that comes from Hitchens is that he excuses morality and believes the reason for people to cause harm to another person is because the higher power said to in the first place. He argues we should think for ourselves and concentrate on what we know more than what we believe. I don't think he's saying to get rid of faith but take everything in and make the most logical decision about a higher power.
One bad argument that Rev. Sharpton makes is how do we know their is a higher power. He tends to rely on the fact that he has been raised to believe in God and excuse any other explanation to way things are. I believe this makes him seem much more closed minded to any other explanation and that he can always just give the answer that god intended it to happen opposed to thinking rationally. That divine intervention doesn't have to have a reason in which to work but rather that it happens because God intended it to.
A bad argument from Hitchens is that he says that he doesn't particularly believe in a higher power but yet he believes people when they tell him that they have experienced miracles. From the side arguing about rationality that doesn't seem to make much sense or deem him very credible. I'm not saying he's not credible, it just doesn't seem to work out like it should. How can a person who doesn't believe in a higher power or God say that they believe in miracles? When miracles are directly associated with divine power or a power of kind not of this earth.
1. On one hand I think that Mr. Sharpton was talking a lot and it did not seemed to me that he was presenting real/existing arguments (maybe one), on the other hand it is a little difficult to give a real/existing argument on something that is not possible to prove (you believe in or not). His argumentation style was a little bit “too much” (mainly the pitch of his voice). Mr. Christopher Hitchens was giving some real arguments. His gestures and expressions were very confident and it was pleasure to listen to him. He was making people laugh (what is always good). However if I think about what he said, I do not think that he used any really good arguments and he was kind of offensive in his speech.
I believe that Mr. Sharpton was using better technique of argumentation, but people can be in favor of Mr. Hitchens because of his presentation style.
2. Mr. Sharpton: “So you do not believe that…” – he referred to what his opponent was talking about and asked question based on his argument. Mr. Hitchens - I think that he used a good argument when he states that people that have power, use other people (believers) and they manipulate with them.
3. Mr. Sharpton: “I think that is very arrogant and delusional” – I believe that this was more verbal attack of the opponent than an argument on this topic. Mr. Hitchens – In my opinion he was not making arguments, he was mostly making fun of one's persuasion and belief in God and religion.
Pertaining to this debate alone, I believe that Christopher Hitchens sets himself apart from Reverend Sharpton as the better debater. Although there are a few moments where it seems as if Hitchens strays from the topic of morality, his underlying argument deems him the winner.
Aside from my agreement with Hitchens'remarks, I do feel that Reverend Sharpton made a valid point that without some higher power acting as a supervisor, our choices moral or immoral would never be met with consequence. Or, that the declaration of our morality should be voted on every 4 years in some sort of "moral democracy."
Opposite, when Reverend Sharpton raises the question to Hitchens of whether or not he believes that history is blanketed with actions of immorality caused by those who choose to believe in a higher power. This is nonsense! History is full of immorality committed by individuals or groups of people, both believers and non-believers.
However, Christopher Hitchens' quoting that evil people will do evil things, good people will try to do good things, but when a good person acts evil it is because religion is involved. I feel that this point captures the topic of morality exhisting without God.
In turn, Hitchens' argument about the Zhar of Russia didn't seem relavent to the debate. Although his explaination of people reaching a higher level of intellectual understand of their choices being made was a great point, I did have some difficulty relating that to the discussion of morality.
Although Reverend Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens had tendencies to stray from the topic at hand, they both were able to present and shed light on good sides to their arguments. However, I contend that Christopher Hitchens was the better argument. His logical evidence constructed for a better argument.
Reverend Al Sharpton poses the question how can morality exist without an higher power. He points out that without a certain higher power, we as a society can change our morals based on who could be in a political office every four years. He directly links this to the fact that without a higher power, people would not know necessarily from what is right and wrong. It would be more or less based on their own interpersonal interpretation of what they see as right and wrong.
Reverend Al Sharpton did two bad arguments that coincided to make one large bad argument as a whole. Because Reverend Sharpton spent more time linking the absence of a higher power to government and what they think was right, seemed to do more with his political views rather than the topic at hand which was “Can morality exist in the absence of God.” Although his political remark about Republicans may not seem arrogant his statement on “you don’t have to burn in hell to know, life has certain guiding posts, that has been set beyond our own being,” was certainly arrogant and not well thought out. From my opinion, he contradicts his point by assuming all of us should believe in hell and that morality is thus set for all individuals to be same. However, not everyone has the same background or brought up with the same lessons like he was, so why bring up we all have the same guiding posts or we have to ‘burn in hell’ to figure out what exactly he means by morality being set before we even existed?
Although, Alfred Hitchens is clearly not the best speaker, he has logical evidence to support most of his arguments. He says “morality is innate in all of us,” we are brought up to believe and uphold standards that are in our best self interest and for others. Most of the time, it has nothing to do necessarily with religion per se, but the rightness of it all.
Hitchens did lag in his last rebuttal to Reverend Sharpton’s question, and I felt that he never really answered the question at hand. If you are arguing about morality existing without the absence of God, bringing up your personal Marxist views that opposed and clashed with rhetoric as well as religion as well as Communism; doesn’t really clarify any argument regarding whether or not morality can exist in the absence of God. Therefore, his rebuttal was ended on a good note, it made for a bad argument with the information he gave to get to the end of his point.
In this debate I believe that Rev. Sharpton is the better debater. Sharpton does a good job at raising the question of what is considered to be moral without a higher power to tell you if its moral or not. Hitchens response is very vague and he seems to be nervous and slow to rebut to Rev. Sharptons arguments.
I love Rev. Sharptons argument when he asks who judges the basis of morality without a higher power. This is a strong argument for a debate because it is a difficult question to answer. However, I do like Hitchens answer when he says that we should decide for ourselves what is considered to be moral. Hitchens makes a valid point and I can see how this would cause certain people to agreee with him.
An arguement that I dont like from Rev. Sharpton is when he mentions that life has "guiding poles" that are set for us before our being. Sharpton could have backed that up by saying God has a plan for all of us but it is still up to us whether or not we choose the right path. This would allow Rev. Sharpton to sound a little less close minded and make it harder for Hitchens to rebut. The worst argument I heard from Hitchens was when he said, "when you want good people to do wicked things well that takes religion." He never states what he meant by that and kinda leaves it up in the air as a joke. Hitchens should have followed up with why he believes this because to me it just makes no sense at all.
Christopher Hitchens is the better arguer. He addresses Rev. Sharpton’s main points of contention with reference to historical events that support his defense that morality is actually innate in us, and not subject to the whims of a supreme power. His witty humor also draws a more positive response from the audience, which although not completely logically sound, helps him make his case that much easier to digest.
I don’t know that Sharpton makes a poor argument, or if he does, it was quickly explained as a premise of a larger idea. He does, however, have some communication disfluencies such as “um” in his speech, which might superficially make his argument seem hesitant or weak.
Rev. Sharpton's argument is attempting to arrive at the conclusion that morality's existence is inextricably tied to that of a higher power - specifically, God. While his view is probably more in tandem with that of the general American public, his logical reasoning is flawed: he presents the case that morality can't exist without a driving force to control it; he doesn't say the driving force must be God. His argument is value-approached, saying that the main issue is the morality of "morality" itself, that is to say, that if God doesn't exist, then any person with might and power can determine the boundaries of morality (his implication is that that would be immoral, or wrong). Another of Sharpton’s faux pas is his use of ad hominem attacks to the opposing argument; this doesn’t make his argument any more valid, but rather suggests his own is weak.
One of Sharpton’s better moments in this debate is his counter-argument that religious people aren’t the only ones who have done evil, although even that leads Hitchens to the victorious conclusion that if religion or the unfounded belief in a deity didn’t exist, the masses wouldn’t be so prone to be led astray from their innate morality by someone astute enough to exploit that weakness.
In deciding who is the better arguer in this debate, it is important to recognize the topic of which is being argued. Reverend Sharpton addresses the issue in his beginning statement that morality comes from God. In my opinion this is the whole “theme” of the argument and Christopher Hitchens sometimes drifts away from this argument with other tangents about religion. Although I found much of what Christopher Hitchens had to say very interesting, it was not always relevant to the argument. With this being said, I would argue that Reverend Sharpton was the better debater with strong, on topic questions and responses.
Perhaps the strongest argument that stuck with me in Reverend Sharpton’s argument was, “There is nothing immoral if there is nothing in charge.. If morality isn’t based n religion then what is it based on? Who’s in power?” If I had to sum up what his entire argument was about I would use these sentences. I felt this was his strongest point that drove home his main argument. However, I thought Mr. Hitchens had an interesting retort when he said that religion is what tells Muslims to blow themselves up and die martyrs. This was a very interesting argument because Reverend Sharpton had been primarily defending Christianity as religion and not necessarily religion as a whole belief.
A weak argument I found from Reverend Sharpton was toward the end of the debate when he said, “It is arrogant to say that the world is waiting for one’s birth or death to set the framework for morality.” I found this a weak argument against Mr. Hitchens because Christianity IS based on the birth and death of one person; Jesus Christ. Although I thought Mr. Hitchens had an interesting point of view, I found his retort, “which is more likely, a Jewish man told a lie or the natural order was suspended” irrelevant to the basic argument and as a distraction to disprove religion along with any argument centered around it.
I believe that Hitchens is the better arguer in this debate because he has an argument that flows, and avoids logical fallacies.
I liked Hitchens' argument stating that religion is actually what causes us to act immorally. He says that truly moral people need not rely on the word of a higher power to decipher what is right and what is wrong; truly moral people can look at a new born baby and instinctively know that hurting it would be wrong. He uses the example of religion and suicide bombings to portray how religion can cause us to act immorally- this is vivid to any audience post 9/11.
Rev. Sharpton's argument that you cannot act morally without a higher power guiding you started out as a good argument- essentially him and Hitchens are arguing definitions here: morality as religiously tied, and morality in relation to human instinct.
Sharpton's argument quickly spiraled into an either/or fallacy ultimately making it a poor argument. Sharpton is stating: EITHER you have a higher power and have the ability to act morally OR you have no higher power and you have no means of acting morally.
When Hitchens talks about how religion/religious beliefs should be hidden or kept private I believe this was a poor argument. Rev. Sharpton could have taken this opportunity to attack Hitchens and pose the question of, "if religious people should remain silent about their beliefs, why should non-religious people be free of the same restriction?"
I believe Christopher Hitchens is the better arguer because he has quotes and actual information that sounds credible about the subject. He also comes from a stand point of defense because Al Sharpton is on an attack mood without providing enough credible sources to back his statements. As a person I felt comfortable with what Christopher Hitchens had to say mainly because he stood his ground after being attacked and made sure his point was understood by the audience and his opponent. Rev Al Sharpton’s position seemed to come from his own personal beliefs and emotions about religion and his tone and appearance seemed as if he was not going by truth or logic but beliefs. Although both parties had different views they both had some interesting points that made their arguments credible. For starters Rev Al Sharpton said “you do not believe atheist ever did anything evil” to make a point at Christopher Hitchens that some of what he was saying was not total truth. A good point brought up by Christopher Hitchens was when he said “I do not think that any person looking at a new born baby would think how wonderful what a gift, now let’s start sawing away at its genetelia with a sharp stone, who would give them that idea but the godly”. Christopher made that point to prove that some things god would not condone. Even though they both had good points made they also had some that made no sense at all. Rev Al Sharpton said “Lets decide every four years what’s moral, most republicans do” which had nothing to do with what the discussion was about. Then Christopher Hitchens said “I believe people when they say they have experienced miracles… as long as they keep it to their selves” which as well as rev Al Sharpton does not make sense with what they are both arguing about which is morality.
From this small section of the debate I feel that Hitchens had a more clear point and was a better arguer. I think Sharpton had a better point but only had a smaller portion of time to explain his side and was not able to give the same length of a rebuttal as Hitchens had. This in my opinion was Sharpton’s fault because of how he set up Hitchens on his rebuttal.
Now on Sharpton’s argument I agree with what he said more than Hitchens. One of the reasons being that he was able to prove his point that nothing is immoral without someone to govern morality. If people set the morality then it would always be changing and making everything moral. This to me plays off the definition of morality and makes a strong point in this argument. Now my disagreement with his side of the debate is the fact his rebuttal was weak in my opinion. He took the one hole in Hitchens argument and allowed him to elaborate on it more for the rest of the video. Sharpton tried to show Hitchens speaking in generalities and that “only the religious have done wicked” and that atheist is not included into morality judging. This was his biggest hole because it took Hitchens argument and almost exaggerated it to a point where it could only help Hitchens.
Hitchens on the other hand in summation of his point brought up the best point in the debate when he spoke about morality being innate in human beings and that he begs for them to think for themselves and not base morality on faith or prejudice. This is what Sharpton did with his attempt at a rebuttal; give Hitchens an opportunity to make his point more clear and concise. The hole in Hitchens argument is what Sharpton picked up on however. He spoke in generalities when he decided to say good people would do well except when there is a divine intervention. That did present a major hole that was capitalized on by Sharpton.
Although I don't completely agree with him, Christopher Hitchens is by far the better arguer. He completely dominates the conversation and holds the audience in the palm of his hand. Al Sharpton is barely even involved in the actual discussion. He has an opening statement and a follow up question. I think the only valid argument he makes is the argument about if there was no higher being then who deciders what is ethical and moral or what is not. Hitchens in response does a nice job of pointing out a list of religious activities that definitely do things that are not moral. The example of the suicide bombers and the baby mutilation really help build his argument. The bad point made by Sharpton was his follow up when he questioned Hitchens if only religious people did bad things. Clearly that was not not what Hitchens was saying. He was just arguing the topic which was morality in religion. Hitchens gaffe comes at this point though because thats pretty much all he had to say, but he goes into to some long diatribe about the Virgin Mary and her womb(I was getting confused at that point to be honest). There wasn't much to judge Sharpton on in this clip but just based on interview control(much like the UFC judging of Octagon control) I would have to say that Hitchens does a much more effective job of arguing his point of view.
iI believe that is the better arguer in this video because he goes straight to the point and doesn't beat around the bush. Hitchens seems to stray from the argument at hand and comes off as if he is rambling on about different things. Even with Hitchens taking up the majority of the video with his argument, he seems to bounce around and stray from the points that Rev. Sharpton has made.
One good argument from Rev. Sharpton is when he argues that if there is nothing in charge, then there is nothing immoral. He does a good job of getting to his point and has a strong backing for his reasoning. He does not beat around the bush or ramble on about different things like Hitchens seems to do. However, I believe he had a bad argument when he was inferring that everyone should believe in Hell and that their is something higher in charge. He basically assumes that everyone should believe this and that a higher being is the only option.
One good argument that Hitchens has is when he argues that it does not take a higher being for someone to realize that hurting a new born baby is wrong. He shows how individuals to take it upon themselves to know what is moral and immoral, individuals should be able to know what is and is not wrong. On the other hand, I feel one bad argument by Hitchens is when he avoids Rev. Sharpton's questions towards the end. To me it seemed as if he was ust rambling on and trying to find words to avoid the question at hand. Hitchens never answered the question and rambled on about different topics. His tambling seemed to me that he did not have an answer and he was just going to bring up several topics in order to stray from the topic at hand.
While both Christopher Hitchens and Rev. Al Sharpton made good points and spoke well, I feel as though Hitchens had the better argument. This is because of how he stated his side and supported his claims. It seemed like Sharpton was focusing more on attacking Hitchens. Hitchens took it in stride and very eloquently answered all of Sharptons criticisms.
Al Sharpton made a good argument in his opening when talking about what were the standards of morality if there is no supreme being who originally sets them up. Saying how the standards will change based on who is in charge. This is a good point because it has been proven through history that the person/people in charge tend to set up their own sets of rules and regulations.
Sharpton made a bad argument when he twisted Hitchens’ words around when Hitchens was talking about innately good people doing good things and innately bad people doing bad things but just focusing on the bad part.
Hitchens made a good argument when he asked what was more possible: a woman giving birth through Immaculate Conception or a Jewish minks who lied? This is a very logical and valid point. When looking at it from a purely academic point of view Hitchens made a great argument.
Hitchens made a bad argument when he was talking about circumcision. While his point is not unreasonable it left much to be desired. He delivered the point decently well, but there was nothing great about this point.
1.Personally I feel like Christopher Hitchens and Rev. Al Sharpton both had good points and seemed to be able to back them up very well. I will say that even though Hitchens seems to be very confident with his opinion I think that Sharpton won this debate, he seemed to be able to back his argument up with simple straight facts.
2.I feel like Sharpton's opening comment about if there was no higher being then there would be no need for morals. I believe this is a good comment because it brings up a good point, what is the reason to behave if no one is watching?
I feel like Hitchens' basic comment about how morality is innate in all humans is a very simple but excellent point. His example of the Palestines who blow themselves up in front of a orphanage backs up this point very well because it strikes the heart of all human beings. What person wants to believe that his own race is innately bad and needs someone to guide them to behave morally? I feel like more people want to believe that there is a bit of good in everyone.
3. I feel like a bad comment was when Sharpton began to insult the other side's point of view this made him seem a lot less professional. I believe that the point of a debate is to be able to break down the other side with the facts that back up your opinion rather than slandering the other side
I feel like Hitchens made many bad comments towards the end because it didn't feel like he was staying on topic, instead he seemed to be mocking religion and avoiding answering the question
Between Mr. Hitchens and Rev. Sharpton, Mr. Hitchens is the better arguer. Personal opinions aside (I promise), Rev. Sharpton brings very little reasoning or basis to his argument other than his clear motivation to defend Christianity's influence in a modern world. On the other hand, Mr. Hitchens connects with his audience from the very beginning, whether it be from humor, humility, or just eye contact, this is something Rev. Sharpton failed to accomplish.
A good argument from Rev. Sharpton would be when he sincerely asks the age-old question, "How will morality survive without a higher power to enforce it?" By asking this question, he provides a question that he knows cannot be truly answered finitely, and therefore he controls in what direction the argument will go, putting Mr. Hitchens on defense.
A bad argument from Rev. Sharpton would be when he talks about the existence of 'guiding-posts' of morality bestowed upon us that dictate what is considered moral to us and what is not. By saying this, it almost serves as an argument against his case, as it suggests that humans really do know what is moral and what is not without the influence of a higher power. He also responds to Mr. Hitchens with the question, "So do you believe that it's only Christians who have committed bad acts in history?" By asking this, he alienates his audience and then proceeds to give Mr. Hitchens a rhetorical question that Mr. Hitchens can quickly answer while having the audience agree with him.
A good argument from Mr. Hitchens is when he discusses the innate ability in humans to determine right from wrong, suggesting that a higher power is not necessary for us to determine right from wrong.
A bad thing about Mr. Hitchens's argument could be the length of it. He runs the risk of alienating or even boring his audience when he talks so much longer than his opponent. If he kept his response short and concise, he would take the power away from Rev. Sharpton who asked him the question instead of rambling on and on.
Question #1: Reverend Sharpton exerted himself with confidence and stayed on topic. The topic, "Does morality exist without God?", is not a question of religion but of the human race defining morals without the influence of a higher being. Christopher Hitchens became wrapped in religion, moreover Christianity, in which he simply mocked the widest religious belief in the world. I believe this is because he did not have a valid opposing argument and was backed in a corner. Also, his use the examples of historic icons and events being immoral made no point in that there were opposing sides larger in numbers dealing with every case. This proves that their ideas were looked down upon, or perceived as immoral. I do feel Sharpton left out many arguments, however, the points made were effective and valid. This being said, I believe Sharpton is the better debater.
Question #2: Sharpton - His argument about the being of morality without God. How does morality/anything even exist? Hitchens - His argument of someone's belief, or false belief, defining their morality.
Question #3: Sharpton - His argument stating that each person waking up every morning defining morality for the entire human race is a very arrogant statement. Hitchens - Stating examples of historic events, i.e. the Civil War, being an example of humans defining morality. There was an opposing side declaring the other's immoral.
I just realized that I didn't publish my blog i just previewed it. I am sure it will not be counted but it was my mistake so I will take the blame. Here is my comments anyway.
I believe that based off of this clip that Mr. Hitchens is the better arguer, not for the fact of him debating better, but for the fact that he and his kills dominated the clip. Rev. Sharpton and his argumentation skills were barely heard in this clip.
A good argument from the side of Rev. Sharpton is when he decides to debate the point that Mr. Hitchens made in that "if you want a good person to do a wicked thing you need to involve God". His statement of "you have never heard of an Atheist person doing wicked things?" I think this is a good statement to make, because other than some theories and a quote from a fellow author Mr. Hitchens does not really have a way of defending himself for this question. A bad argument from this side of Rev. Sharpton is actually the same argument. Even though I think that it was a good argument to make, it sets up some sort of an ultimatum answer for the people, either you are Atheist and do wicked things or you are religious and do kind things, most people are a bit of both. You can be religious and do some wicked things and then the next day and do some very kind things to people A good argument from the side of Mr. Hitchens was that of the argument of the religion in Russia. His point of Stalin not overlooking the fact that for past years the Czar or the leader of the country was put at a higher place than that of anyone else was a good argument, he backed it up unlike his other statements.
A bad argument for Mr. Hitchens was when he was making the point of miracles needing to be kept to the people who experienced them. Though this subject is relevant to the discussion of religion the topic at hand was morality. The experience of miracles has no relation to morality.
After watching this clip from the debate between Rev. Sharpton and Mr. Hitchens I concluded that Rev. Sharpton is the better arguer. The topic of the debate was whether morality is innate or whether it is inexplicably tied to a superior being or god. Although this topic is controversial and it is impossible to decide which participant is right or wrong I think Rev. Sharpton made a better argument when he pointed out a flaw in Mr. Hitchens dispute. He read a quote from Mr. Hitchens book which stated “If you want a good person to do wicked things you need to involve God.” It may be true that there are cases where religious people commit crimes and I understand the point that Mr. Hitchens is making but this is a hasty generalization if I have ever seen one. However, Mr. Hitchens made a good argument when he stated that “solidarity is part of our self interest in society as well as our own interest.” I know atheist people that would do the moral thing in any given situation simply because it is human nature and I agree with Hitchens claim. His statement brings me to what I believe to be a bad argument by Rev. Sharpton when he asks “what is moral if there is no god?” I believe someone can live a moral life despite not believing in God. Like I said before I know an atheist that is a good moral person and usually does the right thing. This was the one bad point I could find in Rev. Sharpton’s argument. This clip was very interesting and both sides made good points.
I believe Reverend Sharpton is the better arguer (at least in this particular debate). He seems to have a better grasp of the topic (morality and religion). The examples brought up by Christopher Hitchens were non-responsive to the Reverend’s arguments.
ReplyDeleteOne good argument made by Reverend Sharpton is in the absence of a higher being, there would be no basis for morality. This is a good argument because it develops a clear brightline for answering the question of the debate (can morality exist in the absence of God?). The argument forces Hitchens to tell us what the basis of a moral system would be if a higher being did not exist. This question goes unanswered by Hitchens, in my opinion.
One bad argument by Rev. Sharpton is his claim that “life has certain guiding poles” that have been established before anyone’s birth. I believe this is a bad argument because he makes the claim that morality is the same for all individuals, which is very difficult to prove. Rather, Rev. Sharpton should have said that although morality may differ from one person to another, each person’s sense of morality is derived from their religion.
One good argument made by Hitchens is that “morality is innate in us”. This is a good argument because Hitchens backs up his claim by saying that moral acts are in our self interest and the interest of society.
One bad argument by Hitchens is his claim that religion drives people to commit immoral actions. This is a bad argument because it does not really answer the question of the debate. Even if religion were to drive people to commit immoral actions, it does not mean that morality could exist in the absence of religion or a higher being.
I believe Rev. Al Sharpton holds the better argument because he seems to have a greater knowledge of the topic at hand which makes his arguments more valid and relevant. Christopher Hitchens constant use of "umm" makes him look uninformed which continues to lower his credibility and in turn makes his overall argument look less convincing.
ReplyDeleteOne strong point that Rev. Al Sharpton makes is that what can morality be based off if there is no higher being to determine what is right or wrong. He then asks what would morality be based off if not a higher being. Whoever has the most power and might in the world? It's this argument that answers the debate question and gives way to if not God than what would govern morality.
One weak argument that Al Sharpton makes is when he begins to insult the other side of the argument calling them arrogant and delusional for believing their point of view. This tends to weaken his overall argument making him look less professional in the sense of debate.
One strong point that Christopher Hitchens makes is when he states that morality is innate in us and we know what’s right and what’s wrong. He strengthens this argument by saying if people had no sense of morality in them, they would do whatever they pleased and “be wolves to each other.” It’s in “our self interest to act moral” he states.
One weak statement that Hitchens makes is when he starts blaming religion for the reason why good people commit bad crimes. This argument seems to be veering away from the topic of debate and makes me believe he’s attempting to avoid the actual question.
While Reverend Sharpton asks compelling questions, I feel like Hitchens is the better arguer, and that may be because in the clip he dominates the whole 10 minutes. I don’t believe he is the best speaker, but when he rebuts he gives logical evidence.
ReplyDeleteReverend Sharpton relays a good argument in his idea that if there is no higher power, we would have to decide who decides morality, and it would be ever changing. There would be no universal law basically.
Hitchens rebuts saying without God, anything is permissible. Also, with the argument to make a good person do a wicked thing, it takes religion. I think this was his best argument because he was logical in his evidence. The best example of this was when he mentions the suicide missions of Palestinians not believing their work is moral until their religion indoctrinated them to believe so. It’s presumptuous, but understandable.
His worst argument was his rebuttal to Rev. Sharpton’s question “through all the history of the world, you don’t think atheists have ever done anything evil?” Hitchens then takes like 3 minutes to finally answer the question with a yes. I don’t know if he needed time to think, or if he just didn’t want to answer, but that was definitely his worst argument. I think it would have been smoother if he polished his speaking skills, I don’t think that disqualifies his ability to make a compelling argument though.
Reverend Sharpton’s worst argument was in his statement “to think the world was waiting on one’s birth, your birth or my birth, to set the framework of morality, I think that is very arrogant.” I say this because it’s contradictory to the whole premise of his viewpoint. Technically, from his viewpoint on religion, the world waited on the birth of one to make a moral code.
In this particular argument I believe that the better arguer is Hitchens. He seemingly tends to have more points in which to explain his side. He doesn't have just one element to his answer and he explains his point in better ways to understand. Plus, it doesn't help that he takes the majority of the clip time up.
ReplyDeleteOne argument that i believed to be pretty intriguing and compelling was Sharptons way of asking how can there be morality with out a higher power to answer to. Everything that we know in terms of morality are no longer relevant and by certain process cannot hold to be true. If we go back to what most of us learned from our parents is that someone is always watching. Like what Rev. Sharpton is implying is that we have to have some what of a higher power in order to know the difference between right and wrong. Without it then everyone would act only on their impulses instead of morals. The good argument that comes from Hitchens is that he excuses morality and believes the reason for people to cause harm to another person is because the higher power said to in the first place. He argues we should think for ourselves and concentrate on what we know more than what we believe. I don't think he's saying to get rid of faith but take everything in and make the most logical decision about a higher power.
One bad argument that Rev. Sharpton makes is how do we know their is a higher power. He tends to rely on the fact that he has been raised to believe in God and excuse any other explanation to way things are. I believe this makes him seem much more closed minded to any other explanation and that he can always just give the answer that god intended it to happen opposed to thinking rationally. That divine intervention doesn't have to have a reason in which to work but rather that it happens because God intended it to.
A bad argument from Hitchens is that he says that he doesn't particularly believe in a higher power but yet he believes people when they tell him that they have experienced miracles. From the side arguing about rationality that doesn't seem to make much sense or deem him very credible. I'm not saying he's not credible, it just doesn't seem to work out like it should. How can a person who doesn't believe in a higher power or God say that they believe in miracles? When miracles are directly associated with divine power or a power of kind not of this earth.
1. On one hand I think that Mr. Sharpton was talking a lot and it did not seemed to me that he was presenting real/existing arguments (maybe one), on the other hand it is a little difficult to give a real/existing argument on something that is not possible to prove (you believe in or not). His argumentation style was a little bit “too much” (mainly the pitch of his voice).
ReplyDeleteMr. Christopher Hitchens was giving some real arguments. His gestures and expressions were very confident and it was pleasure to listen to him. He was making people laugh (what is always good). However if I think about what he said, I do not think that he used any really good arguments and he was kind of offensive in his speech.
I believe that Mr. Sharpton was using better technique of argumentation, but people can be in favor of Mr. Hitchens because of his presentation style.
2. Mr. Sharpton: “So you do not believe that…” – he referred to what his opponent was talking about and asked question based on his argument.
Mr. Hitchens - I think that he used a good argument when he states that people that have power, use other people (believers) and they manipulate with them.
3. Mr. Sharpton: “I think that is very arrogant and delusional” – I believe that this was more verbal attack of the opponent than an argument on this topic.
Mr. Hitchens – In my opinion he was not making arguments, he was mostly making fun of one's persuasion and belief in God and religion.
Pertaining to this debate alone, I believe that Christopher Hitchens sets himself apart from Reverend Sharpton as the better debater. Although there are a few moments where it seems as if Hitchens strays from the topic of morality, his underlying argument deems him the winner.
ReplyDeleteAside from my agreement with Hitchens'remarks, I do feel that Reverend Sharpton made a valid point that without some higher power acting as a supervisor, our choices moral or immoral would never be met with consequence. Or, that the declaration of our morality should be voted on every 4 years in some sort of "moral democracy."
Opposite, when Reverend Sharpton raises the question to Hitchens of whether or not he believes that history is blanketed with actions of immorality caused by those who choose to believe in a higher power. This is nonsense! History is full of immorality committed by individuals or groups of people, both believers and non-believers.
However, Christopher Hitchens' quoting that evil people will do evil things, good people will try to do good things, but when a good person acts evil it is because religion is involved. I feel that this point captures the topic of morality exhisting without God.
In turn, Hitchens' argument about the Zhar of Russia didn't seem relavent to the debate. Although his explaination of people reaching a higher level of intellectual understand of their choices being made was a great point, I did have some difficulty relating that to the discussion of morality.
-Lamberth
Although Reverend Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens had tendencies to stray from the topic at hand, they both were able to present and shed light on good sides to their arguments. However, I contend that Christopher Hitchens was the better argument. His logical evidence constructed for a better argument.
ReplyDeleteReverend Al Sharpton poses the question how can morality exist without an higher power. He points out that without a certain higher power, we as a society can change our morals based on who could be in a political office every four years. He directly links this to the fact that without a higher power, people would not know necessarily from what is right and wrong. It would be more or less based on their own interpersonal interpretation of what they see as right and wrong.
Reverend Al Sharpton did two bad arguments that coincided to make one large bad argument as a whole. Because Reverend Sharpton spent more time linking the absence of a higher power to government and what they think was right, seemed to do more with his political views rather than the topic at hand which was “Can morality exist in the absence of God.” Although his political remark about Republicans may not seem arrogant his statement on “you don’t have to burn in hell to know, life has certain guiding posts, that has been set beyond our own being,” was certainly arrogant and not well thought out. From my opinion, he contradicts his point by assuming all of us should believe in hell and that morality is thus set for all individuals to be same. However, not everyone has the same background or brought up with the same lessons like he was, so why bring up we all have the same guiding posts or we have to ‘burn in hell’ to figure out what exactly he means by morality being set before we even existed?
Although, Alfred Hitchens is clearly not the best speaker, he has logical evidence to support most of his arguments. He says “morality is innate in all of us,” we are brought up to believe and uphold standards that are in our best self interest and for others. Most of the time, it has nothing to do necessarily with religion per se, but the rightness of it all.
Hitchens did lag in his last rebuttal to Reverend Sharpton’s question, and I felt that he never really answered the question at hand. If you are arguing about morality existing without the absence of God, bringing up your personal Marxist views that opposed and clashed with rhetoric as well as religion as well as Communism; doesn’t really clarify any argument regarding whether or not morality can exist in the absence of God. Therefore, his rebuttal was ended on a good note, it made for a bad argument with the information he gave to get to the end of his point.
In this debate I believe that Rev. Sharpton is the better debater. Sharpton does a good job at raising the question of what is considered to be moral without a higher power to tell you if its moral or not. Hitchens response is very vague and he seems to be nervous and slow to rebut to Rev. Sharptons arguments.
ReplyDeleteI love Rev. Sharptons argument when he asks who judges the basis of morality without a higher power. This is a strong argument for a debate because it is a difficult question to answer. However, I do like Hitchens answer when he says that we should decide for ourselves what is considered to be moral. Hitchens makes a valid point and I can see how this would cause certain people to agreee with him.
An arguement that I dont like from Rev. Sharpton is when he mentions that life has "guiding poles" that are set for us before our being. Sharpton could have backed that up by saying God has a plan for all of us but it is still up to us whether or not we choose the right path. This would allow Rev. Sharpton to sound a little less close minded and make it harder for Hitchens to rebut. The worst argument I heard from Hitchens was when he said, "when you want good people to do wicked things well that takes religion." He never states what he meant by that and kinda leaves it up in the air as a joke. Hitchens should have followed up with why he believes this because to me it just makes no sense at all.
Christopher Hitchens is the better arguer. He addresses Rev. Sharpton’s main points of contention with reference to historical events that support his defense that morality is actually innate in us, and not subject to the whims of a supreme power. His witty humor also draws a more positive response from the audience, which although not completely logically sound, helps him make his case that much easier to digest.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know that Sharpton makes a poor argument, or if he does, it was quickly explained as a premise of a larger idea. He does, however, have some communication disfluencies such as “um” in his speech, which might superficially make his argument seem hesitant or weak.
Rev. Sharpton's argument is attempting to arrive at the conclusion that morality's existence is inextricably tied to that of a higher power - specifically, God. While his view is probably more in tandem with that of the general American public, his logical reasoning is flawed: he presents the case that morality can't exist without a driving force to control it; he doesn't say the driving force must be God. His argument is value-approached, saying that the main issue is the morality of "morality" itself, that is to say, that if God doesn't exist, then any person with might and power can determine the boundaries of morality (his implication is that that would be immoral, or wrong). Another of Sharpton’s faux pas is his use of ad hominem attacks to the opposing argument; this doesn’t make his argument any more valid, but rather suggests his own is weak.
One of Sharpton’s better moments in this debate is his counter-argument that religious people aren’t the only ones who have done evil, although even that leads Hitchens to the victorious conclusion that if religion or the unfounded belief in a deity didn’t exist, the masses wouldn’t be so prone to be led astray from their innate morality by someone astute enough to exploit that weakness.
In deciding who is the better arguer in this debate, it is important to recognize the topic of which is being argued. Reverend Sharpton addresses the issue in his beginning statement that morality comes from God. In my opinion this is the whole “theme” of the argument and Christopher Hitchens sometimes drifts away from this argument with other tangents about religion. Although I found much of what Christopher Hitchens had to say very interesting, it was not always relevant to the argument. With this being said, I would argue that Reverend Sharpton was the better debater with strong, on topic questions and responses.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the strongest argument that stuck with me in Reverend Sharpton’s argument was, “There is nothing immoral if there is nothing in charge.. If morality isn’t based n religion then what is it based on? Who’s in power?” If I had to sum up what his entire argument was about I would use these sentences. I felt this was his strongest point that drove home his main argument. However, I thought Mr. Hitchens had an interesting retort when he said that religion is what tells Muslims to blow themselves up and die martyrs. This was a very interesting argument because Reverend Sharpton had been primarily defending Christianity as religion and not necessarily religion as a whole belief.
A weak argument I found from Reverend Sharpton was toward the end of the debate when he said, “It is arrogant to say that the world is waiting for one’s birth or death to set the framework for morality.” I found this a weak argument against Mr. Hitchens because Christianity IS based on the birth and death of one person; Jesus Christ. Although I thought Mr. Hitchens had an interesting point of view, I found his retort, “which is more likely, a Jewish man told a lie or the natural order was suspended” irrelevant to the basic argument and as a distraction to disprove religion along with any argument centered around it.
I believe that Hitchens is the better arguer in this debate because he has an argument that flows, and avoids logical fallacies.
ReplyDeleteI liked Hitchens' argument stating that religion is actually what causes us to act immorally. He says that truly moral people need not rely on the word of a higher power to decipher what is right and what is wrong; truly moral people can look at a new born baby and instinctively know that hurting it would be wrong. He uses the example of religion and suicide bombings to portray how religion can cause us to act immorally- this is vivid to any audience post 9/11.
Rev. Sharpton's argument that you cannot act morally without a higher power guiding you started out as a good argument- essentially him and Hitchens are arguing definitions here: morality as religiously tied, and morality in relation to human instinct.
Sharpton's argument quickly spiraled into an either/or fallacy ultimately making it a poor argument. Sharpton is stating: EITHER you have a higher power and have the ability to act morally OR you have no higher power and you have no means of acting morally.
When Hitchens talks about how religion/religious beliefs should be hidden or kept private I believe this was a poor argument. Rev. Sharpton could have taken this opportunity to attack Hitchens and pose the question of, "if religious people should remain silent about their beliefs, why should non-religious people be free of the same restriction?"
I believe Christopher Hitchens is the better arguer because he has quotes and actual information that sounds credible about the subject. He also comes from a stand point of defense because Al Sharpton is on an attack mood without providing enough credible sources to back his statements. As a person I felt comfortable with what Christopher Hitchens had to say mainly because he stood his ground after being attacked and made sure his point was understood by the audience and his opponent. Rev Al Sharpton’s position seemed to come from his own personal beliefs and emotions about religion and his tone and appearance seemed as if he was not going by truth or logic but beliefs.
ReplyDeleteAlthough both parties had different views they both had some interesting points that made their arguments credible. For starters Rev Al Sharpton said “you do not believe atheist ever did anything evil” to make a point at Christopher Hitchens that some of what he was saying was not total truth. A good point brought up by Christopher Hitchens was when he said “I do not think that any person looking at a new born baby would think how wonderful what a gift, now let’s start sawing away at its genetelia with a sharp stone, who would give them that idea but the godly”. Christopher made that point to prove that some things god would not condone.
Even though they both had good points made they also had some that made no sense at all. Rev Al Sharpton said “Lets decide every four years what’s moral, most republicans do” which had nothing to do with what the discussion was about. Then Christopher Hitchens said “I believe people when they say they have experienced miracles… as long as they keep it to their selves” which as well as rev Al Sharpton does not make sense with what they are both arguing about which is morality.
From this small section of the debate I feel that Hitchens had a more clear point and was a better arguer. I think Sharpton had a better point but only had a smaller portion of time to explain his side and was not able to give the same length of a rebuttal as Hitchens had. This in my opinion was Sharpton’s fault because of how he set up Hitchens on his rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteNow on Sharpton’s argument I agree with what he said more than Hitchens. One of the reasons being that he was able to prove his point that nothing is immoral without someone to govern morality. If people set the morality then it would always be changing and making everything moral. This to me plays off the definition of morality and makes a strong point in this argument. Now my disagreement with his side of the debate is the fact his rebuttal was weak in my opinion. He took the one hole in Hitchens argument and allowed him to elaborate on it more for the rest of the video. Sharpton tried to show Hitchens speaking in generalities and that “only the religious have done wicked” and that atheist is not included into morality judging. This was his biggest hole because it took Hitchens argument and almost exaggerated it to a point where it could only help Hitchens.
Hitchens on the other hand in summation of his point brought up the best point in the debate when he spoke about morality being innate in human beings and that he begs for them to think for themselves and not base morality on faith or prejudice. This is what Sharpton did with his attempt at a rebuttal; give Hitchens an opportunity to make his point more clear and concise. The hole in Hitchens argument is what Sharpton picked up on however. He spoke in generalities when he decided to say good people would do well except when there is a divine intervention. That did present a major hole that was capitalized on by Sharpton.
Although I don't completely agree with him, Christopher Hitchens is by far the better arguer. He completely dominates the conversation and holds the audience in the palm of his hand. Al Sharpton is barely even involved in the actual discussion. He has an opening statement and a follow up question. I think the only valid argument he makes is the argument about if there was no higher being then who deciders what is ethical and moral or what is not. Hitchens in response does a nice job of pointing out a list of religious activities that definitely do things that are not moral. The example of the suicide bombers and the baby mutilation really help build his argument. The bad point made by Sharpton was his follow up when he questioned Hitchens if only religious people did bad things. Clearly that was not not what Hitchens was saying. He was just arguing the topic which was morality in religion. Hitchens gaffe comes at this point though because thats pretty much all he had to say, but he goes into to some long diatribe about the Virgin Mary and her womb(I was getting confused at that point to be honest). There wasn't much to judge Sharpton on in this clip but just based on interview control(much like the UFC judging of Octagon control) I would have to say that Hitchens does a much more effective job of arguing his point of view.
ReplyDeleteiI believe that is the better arguer in this video because he goes straight to the point and doesn't beat around the bush. Hitchens seems to stray from the argument at hand and comes off as if he is rambling on about different things. Even with Hitchens taking up the majority of the video with his argument, he seems to bounce around and stray from the points that Rev. Sharpton has made.
ReplyDeleteOne good argument from Rev. Sharpton is when he argues that if there is nothing in charge, then there is nothing immoral. He does a good job of getting to his point and has a strong backing for his reasoning. He does not beat around the bush or ramble on about different things like Hitchens seems to do. However, I believe he had a bad argument when he was inferring that everyone should believe in Hell and that their is something higher in charge. He basically assumes that everyone should believe this and that a higher being is the only option.
One good argument that Hitchens has is when he argues that it does not take a higher being for someone to realize that hurting a new born baby is wrong. He shows how individuals to take it upon themselves to know what is moral and immoral, individuals should be able to know what is and is not wrong. On the other hand, I feel one bad argument by Hitchens is when he avoids Rev. Sharpton's questions towards the end. To me it seemed as if he was ust rambling on and trying to find words to avoid the question at hand. Hitchens never answered the question and rambled on about different topics. His tambling seemed to me that he did not have an answer and he was just going to bring up several topics in order to stray from the topic at hand.
While both Christopher Hitchens and Rev. Al Sharpton made good points and spoke well, I feel as though Hitchens had the better argument. This is because of how he stated his side and supported his claims. It seemed like Sharpton was focusing more on attacking Hitchens. Hitchens took it in stride and very eloquently answered all of Sharptons criticisms.
ReplyDeleteAl Sharpton made a good argument in his opening when talking about what were the standards of morality if there is no supreme being who originally sets them up. Saying how the standards will change based on who is in charge. This is a good point because it has been proven through history that the person/people in charge tend to set up their own sets of rules and regulations.
Sharpton made a bad argument when he twisted Hitchens’ words around when Hitchens was talking about innately good people doing good things and innately bad people doing bad things but just focusing on the bad part.
Hitchens made a good argument when he asked what was more possible: a woman giving birth through Immaculate Conception or a Jewish minks who lied? This is a very logical and valid point. When looking at it from a purely academic point of view Hitchens made a great argument.
Hitchens made a bad argument when he was talking about circumcision. While his point is not unreasonable it left much to be desired. He delivered the point decently well, but there was nothing great about this point.
1.Personally I feel like Christopher Hitchens and Rev. Al Sharpton both had good points and seemed to be able to back them up very well. I will say that even though Hitchens seems to be very confident with his opinion I think that Sharpton won this debate, he seemed to be able to back his argument up with simple straight facts.
ReplyDelete2.I feel like Sharpton's opening comment about if there was no higher being then there would be no need for morals. I believe this is a good comment because it brings up a good point, what is the reason to behave if no one is watching?
I feel like Hitchens' basic comment about how morality is innate in all humans is a very simple but excellent point. His example of the Palestines who blow themselves up in front of a orphanage backs up this point very well because it strikes the heart of all human beings. What person wants to believe that his own race is innately bad and needs someone to guide them to behave morally? I feel like more people want to believe that there is a bit of good in everyone.
3. I feel like a bad comment was when Sharpton began to insult the other side's point of view this made him seem a lot less professional. I believe that the point of a debate is to be able to break down the other side with the facts that back up your opinion rather than slandering the other side
I feel like Hitchens made many bad comments towards the end because it didn't feel like he was staying on topic, instead he seemed to be mocking religion and avoiding answering the question
Between Mr. Hitchens and Rev. Sharpton, Mr. Hitchens is the better arguer. Personal opinions aside (I promise), Rev. Sharpton brings very little reasoning or basis to his argument other than his clear motivation to defend Christianity's influence in a modern world. On the other hand, Mr. Hitchens connects with his audience from the very beginning, whether it be from humor, humility, or just eye contact, this is something Rev. Sharpton failed to accomplish.
ReplyDeleteA good argument from Rev. Sharpton would be when he sincerely asks the age-old question, "How will morality survive without a higher power to enforce it?" By asking this question, he provides a question that he knows cannot be truly answered finitely, and therefore he controls in what direction the argument will go, putting Mr. Hitchens on defense.
A bad argument from Rev. Sharpton would be when he talks about the existence of 'guiding-posts' of morality bestowed upon us that dictate what is considered moral to us and what is not. By saying this, it almost serves as an argument against his case, as it suggests that humans really do know what is moral and what is not without the influence of a higher power. He also responds to Mr. Hitchens with the question, "So do you believe that it's only Christians who have committed bad acts in history?" By asking this, he alienates his audience and then proceeds to give Mr. Hitchens a rhetorical question that Mr. Hitchens can quickly answer while having the audience agree with him.
A good argument from Mr. Hitchens is when he discusses the innate ability in humans to determine right from wrong, suggesting that a higher power is not necessary for us to determine right from wrong.
A bad thing about Mr. Hitchens's argument could be the length of it. He runs the risk of alienating or even boring his audience when he talks so much longer than his opponent. If he kept his response short and concise, he would take the power away from Rev. Sharpton who asked him the question instead of rambling on and on.
Question #1: Reverend Sharpton exerted himself with confidence and stayed on topic. The topic, "Does morality exist without God?", is not a question of religion but of the human race defining morals without the influence of a higher being. Christopher Hitchens became wrapped in religion, moreover Christianity, in which he simply mocked the widest religious belief in the world. I believe this is because he did not have a valid opposing argument and was backed in a corner. Also, his use the examples of historic icons and events being immoral made no point in that there were opposing sides larger in numbers dealing with every case. This proves that their ideas were looked down upon, or perceived as immoral. I do feel Sharpton left out many arguments, however, the points made were effective and valid. This being said, I believe Sharpton is the better debater.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #2: Sharpton - His argument about the being of morality without God. How does morality/anything even exist?
Hitchens - His argument of someone's belief, or false belief, defining their morality.
Question #3: Sharpton - His argument stating that each person waking up every morning defining morality for the entire human race is a very arrogant statement.
Hitchens - Stating examples of historic events, i.e. the Civil War, being an example of humans defining morality. There was an opposing side declaring the other's immoral.
I just realized that I didn't publish my blog i just previewed it. I am sure it will not be counted but it was my mistake so I will take the blame. Here is my comments anyway.
ReplyDeleteI believe that based off of this clip that Mr. Hitchens is the better arguer, not for the fact of him debating better, but for the fact that he and his kills dominated the clip. Rev. Sharpton and his argumentation skills were barely heard in this clip.
A good argument from the side of Rev. Sharpton is when he decides to debate the point that Mr. Hitchens made in that "if you want a good person to do a wicked thing you need to involve God". His statement of "you have never heard of an Atheist person doing wicked things?" I think this is a good statement to make, because other than some theories and a quote from a fellow author Mr. Hitchens does not really have a way of defending himself for this question.
A bad argument from this side of Rev. Sharpton is actually the same argument. Even though I think that it was a good argument to make, it sets up some sort of an ultimatum answer for the people, either you are Atheist and do wicked things or you are religious and do kind things, most people are a bit of both. You can be religious and do some wicked things and then the next day and do some very kind things to people
A good argument from the side of Mr. Hitchens was that of the argument of the religion in Russia. His point of Stalin not overlooking the fact that for past years the Czar or the leader of the country was put at a higher place than that of anyone else was a good argument, he backed it up unlike his other statements.
A bad argument for Mr. Hitchens was when he was making the point of miracles needing to be kept to the people who experienced them. Though this subject is relevant to the discussion of religion the topic at hand was morality. The experience of miracles has no relation to morality.
After watching this clip from the debate between Rev. Sharpton and Mr. Hitchens I concluded that Rev. Sharpton is the better arguer. The topic of the debate was whether morality is innate or whether it is inexplicably tied to a superior being or god. Although this topic is controversial and it is impossible to decide which participant is right or wrong I think Rev. Sharpton made a better argument when he pointed out a flaw in Mr. Hitchens dispute. He read a quote from Mr. Hitchens book which stated “If you want a good person to do wicked things you need to involve God.” It may be true that there are cases where religious people commit crimes and I understand the point that Mr. Hitchens is making but this is a hasty generalization if I have ever seen one. However, Mr. Hitchens made a good argument when he stated that “solidarity is part of our self interest in society as well as our own interest.” I know atheist people that would do the moral thing in any given situation simply because it is human nature and I agree with Hitchens claim. His statement brings me to what I believe to be a bad argument by Rev. Sharpton when he asks “what is moral if there is no god?” I believe someone can live a moral life despite not believing in God. Like I said before I know an atheist that is a good moral person and usually does the right thing. This was the one bad point I could find in Rev. Sharpton’s argument. This clip was very interesting and both sides made good points.
ReplyDelete