Last night, me, the wife, her dad went to the Sheldonian in Oxford to watch a debate between Christopher Hitchens and John Haldane.

Hitchens is a seasoned (mainly salty) debater and talking head for anti-religious stuff; he recurs on Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO saying religion is, like, really awful. John Haldane is a Papist philsopher lecturer at St Andrews University.

Entry was free; the peasant crowd, necessarily, therefore, was either pro-Christianity in general or Hitchens' fan club. The chap sat in front of us was actually dressed like Hitchens replete with Man from Del Monte suit and slick back hair. Thus Haldane was always going to be the perceived loser, even with Hitchens characteristically in his cups. Dawkins was there too, on the front row, clapping with an ethusiasm that perhaps said more about his ABV than zeal.

Hitchens skillessly avoided the premise of the opening comments which was supposed to find something positive from their respective world-views and common ground between the two. He simply descended into mud-slinging.

Haldane addressed the issue, but did so with aplumb (leaden), removing and replacing his spectacles no less than thirty times, his gentle Scottish accent hindered by a sine wave delivery.

In my opinion, Haldane wins because he was the only one to engage the topic as printed - and well - due to his being a very clever philsopher, despite also being a Papist; though it's doubtful anybody else in the theatre shared my opinion as, aside from the delivery, he made no concession to the populist audience and was all "ontological"-this, "substantive"-that.

The audience got their money's worth, and went away feeling validated and angered in equal measure - whatever they believe in; unchanged. This is the way of public debates concerning religion.

Credo quia absurdum.

Unintentionally funniest moment: Hitchens got a tricky question from a member of the audience and responded with "I don't recognise the grammar of your question." - must try to use this phrase in daily life.