Well for the most part I found it a disappointment. Of the two, Hitchens spends more time actually make points based on the case itself, rather than the person making it. But both of them spent a great deal of time trying to undermine the credibility of the other because of things they said or did in the past. The ratio is maybe 90/10 for Galloway and 50/50 for Hitchens.

It's not necessarily ad hominem (though there is a bit of that). Views that the person espoused previously that don't jive with their current argument is relevant, but it shouldn't be the bulk of the debate.

There was also an awful lot of jeering and yelling during the debate...more akin to a circus than a rational debate. But oh well. If anyone else had the patience to sit through it, let me know what you thought.