Bro Hamza Tzortzis does it again

[InaSamaale]

Check out at 19:34, hella funny

[AgentOfChaos]

I almost felt sorry for the Atheist team cause this wasn't a debate, it was a massacre.

[InaSamaale]

Agent, too true. Reckon the Muslim audience was mostly looking forward to Hamza but Faraz also proved to be a force to be reckoned with.

[Alphanumeric]

This is not a debate. Hard to watch. Terrible and typical, of all sides.

There is no debate. Religion is belief, that is all.

*watched opening addresses, and most of Q&A*

[AgentOfChaos]

It was cringeworthy to say the least how the Athiest team just threw around random anti-Islam disinformation from the internet and hoped something would stick.

[InaSamaale]

This is not a debate. Hard to watch. Terrible and typical, of all sides.

Muslim arguments were quite clear. Watch the whole thing.

Hamza stance:
1. Physical infinite does not exist in the real world
2. Universe cannot be in a state of physical infinity
3. Therefore universe began

1. Universe did not come out of nothing
2. Universe did not create itself
3. Universe was not created from a created thing
4. Therefore, universe had a Creator.

[ihatewritingessays]

this guy is very eloquent mA... he schools them at their own game

[SultanOrder]

Were you there?

Hamza Tzortzis has debates with people who aren't very well knowledgeable of Islam, not very well versed in debating and his debates, and don't really know what they are getting into. For this reason, it ends up becoming more of a show of Hamza ridiculuing and behaving very haughtily. Instead of a real and equal intellectual debate. And this is not, though he would like you to believe, a testament to the strength of his arguments or Islam.
For these reasons and more, I find his debates distasteful and counter-productive. His purported mission is to be a daa'i a caller, but most of the people who go to his "debates" are muslims. The few non-muslims are probably repulsed and feel threatened by the polarized atmosphere. So I don't know if he is trying to reach out to non-muslims, or if he is trying to give a self-esteem boost to the muslims while entertaining them.

[InaSamaale]

Perfect-Order, because they may appear to not possess thorough knowledgeable in Islam is entirely irrelevant. You agree to a debate regarding a certain topic, you are pretty much saying, I know enough to know that this is not the case or this is the case because of A, B and C. Similar to how I would not engage in such a debate, due to my own lack of knowledge both sides are affirming their own regarding both Islam and Atheisim.

Regarding Hamza Tzortzis, I can see how his self-surety may be misinterpreted as boastful but I do not think in any way he or anyone for that matter believes that a debate is the most constructive form of Da'wah but more so, a case of challenging some misconceptions people have about belief in religion in the 21st century as 'blind following' and 'backwards'. I was not there at this debate but I went to a weekend workshop that brother Hamza did about giving daw'ah and it was well worth it.

[SultanOrder]

InaSamaale, to what purpose or to what end do you achieve in debating an ignaramus? All you prove is that he is an idiot, not that you are right. It is even more off-putting when you bash him infront of a jeering crowd consisting of people mostly oppossed to him. It is like watching a box-fight, a heavy-weight against a light-weight. I don't care how confident and strong the light-weight thinks of himself, the match still has a foul smell.

To illustrate my point using my own personal subjective experience. I use to watch his debates, and noticing that I gained no real benefit from them, I asked myself why I watched it. I found that, I enjoyed the thrill of the debate, of the point scoring, of seeing who would counter with the best retort, of the pulzerization and humiliation of the "intellectual west" by the "Islamic knowledge of the muslims". And the more I watched it the more I wanted the other side to be humiliated. And Hamza delivered, he knew how to humiliate, to act properly affronted when they made an obvious Islamic "faux pas". But, after the self-reflection, I came to understand this is not how to debate in Islam. If you are debating about God and Religion, it should be in a civil and beneficial way, not one that turns non-believers away. And to that standard, is what I hold Hamza Tzortzis to.

[AgentOfChaos]

This is not a debate. Hard to watch. Terrible and typical, of all sides.

True.

[InaSamaale]

InaSamaale, to what purpose or to what end do you achieve in debating an ignaramus? All you prove is that he is an idiot, not that you are right. It is even more off-putting when you bash him infront of a jeering crowd consisting of people mostly oppossed to him. It is like watching a box-fight, a heavy-weight against a light-weight. I don't care how confident and strong the light-weight thinks of himself, the match still has a foul smell.

To illustrate my point using my own personal subjective experience. I use to watch his debates, and noticing that I gained no real benefit from them, I asked myself why I watched it. I found that, I enjoyed the thrill of the debate, of the point scoring, of seeing who would counter with the best retort, of the pulzerization and humiliation of the "intellectual west" by the "Islamic knowledge of the muslims". And the more I watched it the more I wanted the other side to be humiliated. And Hamza delivered, he knew how to humiliate, to act properly affronted when they made an obvious Islamic "faux pas". But, after the self-reflection, I came to understand this is not how to debate in Islam. If you are debating about God and Religion, it should be in a civil and beneficial way, not one that turns non-believers away. And to that standard, is what I hold Hamza Tzortzis to.

I understand what you are saying and I agree to an extent. I am yet to come across a debate on ideologies and belief systems that the speakers at one point did not fall into the this trap of ridicule, hyperbole or distortions, something that is not solely selective to Hamza. To be fair to Hamza, he acknowledges and apologizes when this is the case. While it is only natural, it does take away from the intellectual discussion. Do you think Muslims should shy away from such debates altogether given that there is a risk of offending those with an alternative world view?

[SultanOrder]

I don't only blame Hamza Tzortis, and for the most part he is a good guy, but it's the whole platform that is flawed.

It is not risk that I am saying we should shy away from, though we should mitigate it as much as possible. It is the method in which we are trying to open the discussion, and bring about change in the communities we live in. These debates are very aggressive, and puts more emphasis on the skill of the rhetorician than knowledge. And that is exactly why they fall into the trap that you so eloquently put forth. For logical fallacies are types of arguments taught and used to sway an audience, not because of their veracity but because of their effectiveness. And the ultimate objective is winning and not fiding Truth.

We are compelled to bring the message, but we are judged on how we brought it.

[InaSamaale]

I don't only blame Hamza Tzortis, and for the most part he is a good guy, but it's the whole platform that is flawed.

It is not risk that I am saying we should shy away from, though we should mitigate it as much as possible. It is the method in which we are trying to open the discussion, and bring about change in the communities we live in. These debates are very aggressive, and puts more emphasis on the skill of the rhetorician than knowledge. And that is exactly why they fall into the trap that you so eloquently put forth. For logical fallacies are types of arguments taught and used to sway an audience, not because of their veracity but because of their effectiveness. And the ultimate objective is winning and not fiding Truth.

We are compelled to bring the message, but we are judged on how we brought it.

[Alphanumeric]

This is not a debate. Hard to watch. Terrible and typical, of all sides.

Muslim arguments were quite clear. Watch the whole thing.

Hamza stance:
1. Physical infinite does not exist in the real world
2. Universe cannot be in a state of physical infinity
3. Therefore universe began

1. Universe did not come out of nothing
2. Universe did not create itself
3. Universe was not created from a created thing
4. Therefore, universe had a Creator.

This is not a debate. Hard to watch. Terrible and typical, of all sides.

There is no debate. Religion is belief, that is all.

*watched opening addresses, and most of Q&A*

It isn't worth watching. Waste of time.