I have seen Peter Hitchens argue better than he did above. But so much depends on the format of the show and the presenter. It is really difficult to develop more than one point at a time (which is annoying since your instinct is to respond to your opponent's argument - and separately try and advance your own argument as well). This is difficult on most TV shows due to time pressures and the presenter interrupting in order to ensure everybody has their say.
So - for a start - this debate would be much better if was just one versus one. And not two versus one.
With that said - I feel Peter Hitchens made the better arguments.
Matthew Perry tried some ad hominem attacks and Appeals to Authority. Whilst also trotting out the 'argument' that everybody else disagrees with him so he must be wrong. Which is such a dumb argument that I don't think anybody has ever bothered listing it in the usual lists of logical fallacies.
http://www.richardprins.com/wp-content/u...poster.jpg
Still - even with the Appeal to Authority - Hitchens responded robustly that the same source that once argued Homosexuality was disease may also be incorrect when 30 years later it argues that alcoholism is a disease.
Later in the argument. Hitchens made the interesting point that even if Matthew Perry was 100% correct. Then it would be all the more reason for the law to be as strict as possible when deal with drug offenders. In order to save those poor 'addicts' from the terrible costs of being addicted to a drug which will rob them of all moral choice and free will. Surely if that argument were correct - then the only rational approach would be to act as severely as possible in order to prevent people from ever dablling with drugs in the first place.
Now to take Peter Hitchens' argument. He simply asked for an objective medical defintion of addiction. And was met with silence every time. And Matthew Perry trying to guilt trip him into shutting up by whinging on about his own history of addiction (another fallacy - best not to build your case around a sample of one).
But the key argument that Peter Hitchens put forward - and which was also ignored, is the following. If Matthew Perry is correct then it means no drug addict has ever given up drugs for good through the use of will power alone.
That is the key point that Peter Hitchens wanted a response to. And it is clear that Hitchens is right. Since I know many people who have done this. There will be many people on this forum who have done this. And there are many people around the world, in every country, who do this every single day.
Will power.
And nothing else.
Try curing a real disease like cancer or AIDS through will power alone. You will fail. Because will power is of no use against a real disease.
---------------------------------
I am not particularly passionate about the drugs debate. Since I am pretty tolerant and don't give a fuck what other people do with their lives. I am just a huge Peter Hitchens fan and wanted to give my analysis of the above.
---------------------------------
Here are Hitchens' thoughts on his debate with Matthew Perry.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...nter-.html