Logical Fallacies

[Chris.Roth]

I recently have spent the majority of my time indulging in debates on a daily basis. Recently, I came across the Christopher Hitchens vs George Galloway on the Iraq war. Whether you agreed with the war or not, it was difficult to watch Galloway make almost every single argument out of Ad Hominem, littered with a few irrelevant facts (non sequiturs, in my opinion.) Hitchens, on the other hand, did his usual magic with endless facts to support genuine arguments. The debate seems to have been divided, as half the audience booed Hitchens and applauded Galloway, while the other half was the other way around. How can someone actually make these arguments in a debate and gain respect for it? (Fallacies, I mean.) I'm not asking this as a biased opinion--I genuinely want to know what I'm missing here. I was always taught fallacies are never to be used in debate, but it seems that one could easily win a debate with such pathetic arguments. Perhaps I'm making something from nothing, but I'd love some input. (For the full debate, you only need search "Hitchens vs Galloway" on youtube, the whole debate is there.)

Thanks for reading!

Chris Roth