worst religious debater EVAR

[Angrboda]

I saw Hamza debating Dan Barker last year and I found him quite persuasive. His arguments were nothing special, but he delivered his arguments and responded to Barker in a way that was appealing and compelling.

You shouldn't be persuaded by the character of the individual. His arguments should be what persuades you, not his presentation. Hitler was a charismatic and passionate man with a sense of humour, but do you find his arguments compelling?
If Hamza's logic and reasoning has no merit, you shouldn't be falling for his charm. We have a word for that: asininity.

The thread title and OP suggest that he is not a good debater. What I think of his arguments is a separate issue, insofar as they do not detract from his debating technique. His arguments were typical fare, but, among other things, in his rebuttals to Barker's complaints about his cosmological argument, he recovered well, and made Barker appear to be the unreasonable one; he showed well that night.