John MacArthur gets the last word

After the initial flurry of encomiums upon the untimely death of Christopher Hitchens, we now see something else. People who got tired of losing to him in debate when he was alive are seizing on the opportunity to get the last word in, now that they know they are safe from a direct, withering rebuttal from the man himself. In this way they hope to soothe some of their bruised pride and make it appear, at least to themselves, as if they have finally managed to score a debating point. I say, if arguing with a dead man makes you feel more alive, by all means go for it.

John MacArthur’s recent contribution to this genre is not quite the worst I’ve seen, but it does feature this cowardly move: rather than engage with Hitchens’ arguments for the invasion of Iraq (Hitchens’ adoption of this position apparently having kept MacArthur worked up since 2002), MacArthur theorizes that the journalist simply “went mad as he consumed huge amounts of alcohol.” Once you’ve said that, you need not say anything more (although he certainly does). After all, you can’t argue with brain damage. Although, what does it say about you when you couldn’t win arguments with the possessor of the hypothesized damaged brain while he was still alive?