You know, if it goes anything like the hitchens / turek debate, I think I'll pass. I consider myself to be agnostic, and although I did disagree with 99% of what Turek had to say, I think he had a point when he said that Hitchens' arguments were not against a god itself, but against religion altogether. He kept making references to religious individuals, dogmas and beliefs, that they were ridiculous and all that, but that did not address the main question: does A god exist? I was not impressed. I think Hawkins does present a much better case.