He didnt do himself too many favours by having an agenda that he was too emotionally tied to. He often came across as irrational as the religious bigots he was talking to, and sometimes sacrificing a logocal argument to a heated debate.
I felt he could have quite often made mincemeat of the illogical opposition, but lost it to his own temper or agenda. E.g.
Moslem chap: "you let your women go around dressed like whores"
Him: "I DONT DRESS ANY WOMEN" - said quite frustratedly, then scene cut. I assume he lost it at that point.
He should have said pinned the moslem down to specifics - "exactly which women am I personally responsible for?" "what if I tell you my wife always covers her legs and arms?" "what if I tell you I am not married and do not have any women living in my house". "What about the situation where I ask my daughter to leave home because she refuses to dress modestly, and she then chooses to live on her own. Who is to be held responsible for making her dress modestly?" "Exactly how far am I authorised to go as a man to force a woman to dress modestly? Verbal threats? Physical violence? Death penalty?"
I will definately watch it next week, but I did feel that he lost many arguments by being as illogical and dogmatic as the people he was argueing with. IT wouldnt have taken very much to make them look really silly, but he wasnt up to the job.
It was like one of those pointless arguments you listended to when you were on field service with Brother Dogmatic, and he insisted on knocking on the local vicars house.