In a previous report, I commented on
Deborah Lipstadt’s book Denying the Holocaust. She exposed
the tricks and traps of dishonest influence peddlers who push conspiracy
theories claiming to debunk one of the most documented historical events—read,
atrocities--in modern human history.
How does she deal with Holocaust deniers? She calls them
out—and she refuses to debate them. She reasoned that providing a forum for
Holocaust denial is to legitimize their fraud as mere difference of opinion.
She would never cancel their freedom of speech or lock them
up for saying atrocious things, but she will never debate them.
I think conservatives need to start considering this piece
of wisdom, even if it’s from a liberal academic who claimed that January 6th
was a terrible thing and mocked conservative US Senators for calling out the
political witch hunt of the Biden Administration.
In fact, the Bible established this wisdom before Lipstadt
ever moved her lips:
“The beginning of strife is as when one
letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.”
(Proverbs 17:14)
"It is an honor for a man to keep aloof from strife,
but every fool will be quarreling." (Proverbs 20:3)
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you
yourself will be just like him." (Proverbs 26:4)
I love Jesus’ wise counsel in the Sermon on the Mount:
“Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye
your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you.” (Matthew 7:6)
The people who insist on accusing Israel of genocide in
Gaza, the people who keep blaming the French Foreign Legion, Mossad, your mom
and dad (take your pick) for the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the people who
insist on talking over someone in a debate, starting fights just for the
views—they are swine, and they don’t deserve our pearled ears and eyes.
Here’s an example of an absolute waste of time:
Candace Owens and Andrew Wilson sat down for
a debate about “Who (Really) Killed Charlie Kirk?”
Patrick Bet-David hosted the “discussion.” PBD is a sound
man, calm, with a history of overcoming obstacles and making something of
himself. He provides a forum for reasoned dialogue and a committed interest in
learning from other people, no matter how weird, vile, or compelling their
views may be.
But he decided to host a debate about how Charlie died? They
might as well have discussed whether 2 + 2 = 4.
He wanted to put Candace Owens to the test under a rigorous
repartee with Andrew Wilson, who has a history of insulting guests and talking
over people. Wilson’s checkered abuse is so well-documented that he agreed not
to engage in personal slights in his debate/discussion/distasteful waste of
time with Owens about “Who Killed Charlie?”
The fact that they had to broker such an agreement shows
that the debate was never going to be in good faith.
Is this the kind of nonsense that conservative discourse has
been reduced to?
Podcasters (read: grifters) discuss things that have already
happened, been affirmed, and assured.
What are we doing?
Debate culture is falling into the same downturned wokeness
abyss that protest culture, outrage culture, and even cancel culture have
dragged this country.
Sometimes, it’s best not to talk about something.
So, who won that debate? Bet-David tried to split the baby,
claiming that they both won. Give me a break. This is a joke. The whole debate
is a falsehood of the lowest order.
I liked one piece of advice I received from a commentator:
don’t debate people online unless you’re getting paid to do so.
So many people are getting paid to click and bitch and moan
and carp about the obvious.
Sowing doubt provides a way to trap gullible listeners into
a never-ending cycle of corruption and confusion. The average listener gets
giddy when they think they have been inducted into a hallowed or heinous
secret. “I know something you don’t know!”
They boast against the rest of the world, which is content
to accept the “established narrative,” never mind whether that narrative is
actually the truth or not.
We, as consumers of news and content on social media, have a
responsibility. Stop listening to the trash, and stop giving garbage
commentators clicks, views, and revenue.
There are some things that have gone past debate.
Dinesh D’Souza also engaged in another so-called debate
with Andrew Wilson (the same fool who sat down with Candace Owens to expose
to everyone how stupid she is). They argued about whether Christians have a
moral obligation to support Israel.
The question on its face is ridiculous. Human beings don’t
have a moral obligation to do anything if there’s no frame of reference. The
chain-smoking, nicotine-chewing Wilson routinely employs such tiresome
linguistic sleight-of-hand in his debates.
At the end of their clash, D’Souza challenged the amoral
posturing of philosopher David Hume, who asserted in his Treatise of Human
Nature that “No is implies an ought.”
I found D’Souza’s reasoned statement compelling. He claimed
that the status of an object can inform us of its proper use. Instead of
responding, Wilson just guffawed, trying to drown out D’Souza’s remarks. To his
credit, D’Souza has faced similar clownish behavior, like his debate with Cenk
Uyghur. Cenk could only retort, “You just
got out of jail!” because he had no argument.
D’Souza might want to rethink these abortive debates. As a well-read
man, he shouldn’t promote these pig-headed fools.
Consider the latest dust-up over Israel, another set of
debates, between Yoseph Haddad, an established IDF fighter, an Orthodox
Christian Arab, and an ardent Zionist advocate for his home country—and an
array of freaks and weirdos who are obsessed with Israel.
He
participated in a rapid-fire social media debate forum with a series of
pro-Palestinian hacks, rabid anti-Semites, and third-rate, room-temperature IQ
anti-Zionists.
The debates were mind-numbingly bad. They talked over each
other. They didn’t establish terms or conditions of argument.
The anti-Israel (i.e. Jew-hating) crowd repeatedly called
Haddad bitter names.
One of
the so-called interlocutors, Dennis “Def Noodles” Feitosa, repeatedly
cursed at Yoseph, then threatened him. The whole debate broke down into empty
nonsense following Haddad’s simple request: “Can you define what is a
Palestinian?”
Noodles could not, then grew incensed, crossed the table to
put his arms on Haddad, threatened him again, and the debate dissolved into
more calls of violence. When Haddad exited to the parking lot, Yoseph Haddad’s
security personnel kept limp Noodles as far away from the Israeli as possible. When Noodles
tried to choke him from behind, Haddad’s security subdued the third-rate creep
once and for all.
This is outrageous. Throughout the whole exchange, Feitosa
was smiling. It was all for show, all for clicks. He may face criminal charges,
but the notoriety will draw people to subscribe to his social media.
It’s time to boycott these right-wing woke fools. They don’t
care about truth. They want to score easy potshots, push lies, and then claim
legitimacy because of the debate format.
We need to stop giving credence to the dishonest, and we can
start by not watching them in the first place.
.jpg)
