worst religious debater EVAR

[killybob]

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.

[paulpablo]

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.

hes pretty charismatic but when you look over his arguments they just seem to fail so badly yet he still remains arrogant.

theres a a lot of christians who failed more dramatically when trying to argue against christopher hitchens, al sharpton, i think was one of them, the radio show host who plays that game with him "what if god is real" theres a load of them on the hitch slap collection on youtube but they put up such a pathetic fight and get obliterated by hitchens so they arent even really worth mentioning.

[ThatMuslimGuy]

I've met Hamza multiple times he's a great guy. He's done talks at our Masjid. I spent 4 days chilling with him on a Muslim retreat. He such a nice guy.

[Nine]

I've met Hamza multiple times he's a great guy. He's done talks at our Masjid. I spent 4 days chilling with him on a Muslim retreat. He such a nice guy.

Thats good news to me. I don't like not liking people.

[Cyberman]

I watched Tzortzis' guest appearance on The Magic Sandwich Show, in fact I might already have linked to it somewhere. He's the Muslim William Lane Craig, in all the wrong ways. He might be a very nice guy, he certainly is well spoken, but some of his views are very un-nice.

We as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom. We see under the Khilafa (caliphate), when people used to engage in a positive way, this idea of freedom was redundant, it was unnecessary, because the society understood under the education system of the Khilafa state, and under the political framework of Islam, that people must engage with each other in a positive and productive way to produce results, as the Qur’an says, to get to know one another. Whereas in this society, what they call debate and positive discourse is printing cartoons.

(Extended version of the quote taken from here.)

I've never heard of that other bloke, Cliffe Knechtle, before. Maybe I'll watch out for him, when I need a laugh.

[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.