Dinesh D’Souza has participated in a number of debates in the past year and he did his best to hold his own while butting heads with Hitchens at The King's College. Hitchens, as usual, puts forth a great argument and really covers a lot of ground.

Here is a sample to whet your appetite:

You are told that by applauding a human sacrifice, a particularly cruel and revolting one, that took place before you were born, to fulfill a prophecy in which you had no say, condemns you either punishment and sin if you don't accept it, or, if you do accept it, offers you a chance that your own sins can be forgiven you.

Well, everything is wrong with this picture. First, as with the original proposition of a deity, it requires of you compulsory love as well as compulsory fear. You have to simultaneously love someone, you are commanded to love them, and be frightened of them at the same time. This is no way to teach morals.

Second, you are told not that you might get a second chance, or that your debts can be paid. I can pay your debts, if I care enough for you, I could serve your time in prison if I wished. But I can't forgive you the sin. I can't absolve you of the responsibility for what you've already done. I can't wash you white as snow. And the desire to be washed in that way and to be free of responsibility is itself an immoral one and should be rejected by anyone with any self respect.

The vicarious redemption by human sacrifice is an immoral preachment with very immoral implications. As is compulsory love coupled with compulsory fear.