1. Mr. Brink says:

    I found this debate ultimately disappointing. Wilson seemed to be off his game, as though he was sick or tired or both – he had good moments, but many other irrational assertions were allowed to slip by. Sullivan really controlled the debate and took the lion’s share of the time – aside from the opening statements and closing remarks, he really drove it, and I, for one, got tired of Wilson’s face watching Sullivan pontificate. There were several logical fallacies that should have been challenged, as well as a more robust show of convincing forensics – matter and manner. And Wilson is capable. And the arguments are there to be more strongly asserted. It just felt like, in spite of the majority audience, Sullivan had him on his heels – wrongly so – for most of the debate. And then Sullivan really rubbed his nose in it when he hadn’t made a strong premise, and had sympathetic audience members questioning him about it. Can we see a redo on this?

  2. Bryan Hangartner says:

    I too was disappointed with Mr. Wilson’s allowance of unmitigated irrationality, although it seems that the structure of the debate that Mr. Hitchens oversaw was inherently vulnerable to take-over by whoever happened to be loudest; in this case, Mr. Sullivan.

    A debate format in which each side has equal time to present their case in alternating speeches and rebuttals would, I believe, have given Mr. Wilson more time to repeat his one plain and simple point that accepting homosexual unions as “marriage” leads necessarily to accepting any other combination of consenting adults as equally valid “marriage.” Some of the questioners had clearly not seen Wilson’s line of reasoning here because he didn’t have time to repeat it every time Sullivan failed to logically counter it!

Leave a Comment