To be fair, Hitchens repeats a lot of the same material, debate-to-debate. But because he's so much less schticky, it's less obvious. Or less silly at least. (At least Turek didn't repeat the repugnant wifey jokes.)

what an ASS, using the death of an american soldier to gain applause from the audience. Very disrespectful!

If i were in the audience i would ask Hitchens if the fact he deliberately babbles irrelevant comments all the time, eating the time available to the adversary, is a good example of morality by an atheist.

Anyways, again Turek won. He presented evidence, Hitchens presented the same tiresome complaints about people who claim to be religious and do nasty stuff. Hitchens didnt even understand what Turek was talking about when he was mentioning about thoughts and all being merely a product of chemical reactions.

As a secular humanist, I am on Hitchens side but I was annoyed by his rant against Mother Teresa, I don't think it was necessary. Turek has yet to explain how he goes from a Prime Mover to Jesus and the Bible, quite a huge leap there… his case for a prime mover is interesting but to then say the Bible is true, all other religions are false, Jesus did miracles, rose from the dead etc.. is quite an intellectual stretch…

Turek cannot accept the fact we are highly evolved animals. Our thoughts, ideas are indeed the products of bio-chemical reactions in the brain... take a normal person with rational thoughts and give that person Meth or any other neuro-toxic drug, it won't take long for that person's brain to start acting up, neurons firing left and right, a flood of neurotransmitters etc... That person would slowly become “crazy” and stop making any sense since the brain biochemistry would have been totally messed up... Another example is depression due to a the lack of serotonin between neurons, another one is dopamine and Parkinson’s etc…

How could Turek sink any lower than his closing statement with those emotive pictures of the seal who threw himself on a grenade.
Apart from the device itself, it knowingly misrepresents Hitchens' statement of disgust at the actual concept of vicarious redemption through the torture and sacrifice of Jesus - i.e. that we (supposed 'sinners') could be resolved of our responsibility for our wrongs.
It is a disgusting doctrine that would imply that the Catholic heaven could logically contain the Catholic Hitler if he followed it correctly. (Up to the point of the unrepentable suicide of course !)

What a disgraceful display of the worst theist arguments I have ever witnessed. Turek does OK so long as he sticks to defending the deist view, but once he crosses over to Jesus and Noah and other fairytale creatures from his favorite book, everything falls apart and The Hitch destroys him; and all respect to Christopher for rightfully admitting he cannot debate anyone in physics-- neither can Turek, so he'd better stop trying to.
The best argument against any religion is the existence of all other religions. We are all atheists, but some go one god further.

That last emotional stunt by Turek was both unconscionable and misleading. Hitchens never says that sacrifice is morally wrong, in fact he has praised the sacrifice of armed forces all over the world who fight against oppression on many occasions. What Hitchens says in his book is that it is morally wrong to have your sins forgiven because of the sacrifice of another. We are each responsible for our own actions and no amount of killing or crucifying can change that or should change that. For Turek to purposefully misrepresent him and then ambush him with this stupidly emotional appeal when he had no right of reply is precisely the sort of emotional stunt that religions have always relied on.