Obviously, Christopher Hitchens has an interesting personality and is very bright. Nonetheless, his Christian debate opponents usually have similar if not identical assets. The reason that Hitchens often appears to “win” the debates is because he argues from moral conviction. Strangely, his Christian opponents I have seen won’t engage with him on this ground.
Take this debate below between Hitchens and William Lane Craig. It is quite long (1-2 hours in total) but if you watch it all, you will see the irony I am describing. Craig is a very good debater and, at the end, concludes that Hitchens hasn’t laid a glove on him…and that Christianity has won the debate. The problem is that Craig is viewing and grading the debate in strictly philosophical terms. Audiences, however, don’t listen so purely. They are affected at the emotional level, and this is where Hitchens has appeal.
I believe in Jesus Christ and nothing Christopher Hitchens has said makes me want to do otherwise. However, it is disappointing to see Hitchens take the moral high ground while the representatives of Jesus argue philosophies, logic, and tradition. Surely Jesus has a moral argument that is superior to anything Christopher has heard or said.
(If you want to view the Hitchens-Craig debate, which is one of the best, here it is:)