If you’re a fan of Fanon, there’s a work of fiction that came out recently that you might be interested in. I’m not sure if his theories play a strong role in the story or not though

his arguments were less sound than those of Harris.

I don’t recall Harris making any. Still, an example would be helpful, since you are suggesting Harris did better.

P.s. No, it is not in the eye of the beholder. It is an intellectual debate, and most people are pretty well equipped to judge the merits of an argument.

I’d would strongly encourage everyone here at antiwar.com to visit google or youtube and watch the debate themselves. It’s certainly interesting.

He does? Why not give some examples?

Harris, in a debate with Hedges (one in which Hedges does not represent himself well), refutes the assertion that he advocates military action, let alone nuclear war.

Hedges represented himself superbly and his demolition of Harris was masterful. The latter was reduced to fishing for cheap applause (and the audience duly obliged). As both the moderator Robert Scheer and Hedges pointed out, Harris disingenuously denied making claims which are in his book. Presumably for people like William above reality can be trumped through the sheer force of affirmation.

All “New Atheism” is, is to not give instant undeserved respect to ideas which have no merit in the real world. Such as the idea that there exists an all powerful invisible magician who controls everything. It’s fucking stupid, the idea is idiotic, NOT THE PEOPLE, but the IDEA.