Week 8 - Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry.

When I first read the topic “A public speaker I admire and why”, all I could think was that there are far too many! How can I choose one? Still, I keep coming becoming back to this thought: Within science there are so many great speakers and some of them are well known and some of them are not. Then I had a light bulb moment! “Wait a minute, why does this have to be about science!”, and isn't  just a great communicator what this is all about?

At this point two names popped into my head; Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. These are two expert communicators I enjoy hearing. I can’t pick one so I am going to choose, and explain, an extraordinary moment when these two people joined together in a debate! It’s not actually breaking the rules for the blog… I am merely modifying them!

Sadly Christopher Hitchens passed away on 15^th December, 2011.

Both Hitchens and Fry are authors who have each written many books. Most people are more familiar with Stephen Fry's acting rather than his books. Fry is associated with comedy acting more so than his extraordinary ability as a dramatic actor or taking part in intelligent debate.

The debate I want to talk about took place in 2009, hosted by Intelligence Squared. Intelligence Squared is an organisation, founded in 2002, which stages debates around the world. The debates are held in traditional Oxford style with as many as 2,500 attending some events. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens comprised one team in this debate. The opposition team consisted of Ann Widdecombe (a British MP) and John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Abuja. They were debating the motion: The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.

{My comment here: I have linked to the full debate and if this interests you then it is worth the time to listen and watch. But I do need to warn people if you find debate over religion and the use of religion offensive please do not watch the video.}

In this debate you can see the pure class of both Hitchens and Fry.  They make their points in the debate with humour and decisiveness. To be honest Fry does it better then Hitchens, while making Bishop Onaiyekan and Widdecombe, who are good public speakers in their own right, look trapped and ineffectual.

Fry and Hitchens are wordsmiths of the highest calibre, having a mastery of language that is outstanding and awe-inspiring. Their intelligence is abundantly apparent in that they so easily and quickly adapt to, and counter, the arguments of the opposing side. In fact they didn’t just adapt to the arguments from the other side, they destroyed them. They annihilated them. On top of this their stage presence holds your attention to an amazing degree. It is mesmerising.

To give an example (and I am paraphrasing), the topic of the harm done by the Catholic Church in respect to the ongoing hiding of priests who have molested children emerged.

Ann Widdecombe expressed disbelief that this topic was brought up at all and felt it was no longer an issue needing to be dealt with.

Stephen Fry’s answer was the best I have heard: The Catholic Church not wanting this issue brought forward and complaining that it was, indeed, brought forward is "like a burglar standing before the court complaining that the police were bringing up all the burglaries he had committed".

If, in time, I could develop one twentieth of their ability as a public speaker and debater of science and critical thinking I would have reached the lofty company of great speakers. Fry and Hitchens are true masters of the art and people I will always look up to.

    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrIHw0fZNOA