How does he distinguish between good dogma (the Golden Rule) and bad dogma (Genesis is a literal account of creation)?
During the debate he seems sympathetic to Buddhism, and that shows a weakness in his position. He stresses that even dogmatic ideas which seem to be fine can have negative consequences (actually I may be overlapping with Dawkins' points) for example the idea that souls join embryos at conception can seem perfectly neutral to someone unexposed to the debates that follow from it.
The problem he has is that dogma is too rigid by definition. Even the golden rule can be applied dogmatically to be a complete asshole.
You have a long way to go though - I think its all the way down in session 9. To be honest, its a solid debate and both sides have their weaknesses exposed, but in all the anti-dogmatists (in my opinion) present the more cogent defense. I was probably a
Neville Chamberlain before I watched it all, but by the end I was more of a Moranist or Dawkinite now
Tyson is right when he rebukes Dawkins, but Dawkins is right that one has to be brash to raise consciousness - burning bras wasn't the way towards rational dialogue, but it raised awareness of the issues anyway.