I've found it exceedingly challenging to attempt to recast Hitchen's rhetoric as atheological arguments. Here is one example:
- If religion X is true, then its conception of morality must be correct
- For a moral theory to be correct, it must be lead to moral action
- [Insert litany of relevant religious atrocities here]
- Therefore, religion X is not true.
Mostly, Hitch sticks to step #3 and leaves the rest of the proof and all inferences to the listener. I should point out that most religionists I know will explicitly reject step #2, if the question is put to them directly.
Overall, this debate lacked heft and substance, and was long on rhetoric. Both speakers rate about 2.5 or so.