I'm listening to one of his debates right now |2_0|
Aside from the clearly irrational displays used to ask a clearly biased question based on the pictures - the rapacious screamer against the calm Hitchens? Hitchens made some good points, rarely about 'religion', he lost with Mother Theresa, and his bet seller is a flop. His brother's book is better. Calmer. More rational. Was he good at pandering to a crowd? So I guess that real question is whether we value pandering more than actual substance - if we value the later, Hitchens lost every time on religion.
As an atheist, I agreed with Hitchens on almost all levels. However, I found him rambling a little too often, and always let his opponents get away with things that even I could plainly see.