Because he would then hand you a mic to challenge his point. In a healthy debate. And you connected your own dots on the second point to satisfy your sick sense of justice.
Wow what an upstanding guy. He would hand us the mic. For what? To create a thumbnail on YouTube on how you pre-determinately got "owned" before you even received it?
A healthy debate about genocide ? ?
Isn't that what happened in 1994? We debated if what was happening in Rwanda was genocide. We debated if there was Genocide in Bosnia between 1992-1995. And then debate what to do about it if we do recognize it as genocide
How can a civil exchange of ideas not be healthy? Agreement is not a requisite to the definition. If such a debate feels unhealthy to you, I’m not sure what to say.
You would probably get more out of debating with an LLM. Let's have an LLM with a mic on every campus for these "healthy" debates that are progressing humanity.
Or maybe we can fine-tune an LLM with all his dialogue that has been recorded.
I guarantee in the latter case no one would care, because the showmanship aspect would be gone, which is what it really was about. Entertainment.
What's unhealthy and double-standard-y about this is, people like Kirk in many quarters on the right have been talking about taking away constitutional rights like second amendment, maybe even first, for transgender people.
For some people those issues exist in a realm of debatable topics because they're not affected by it. It's apparently within the realms of debate to justify mass holocaust of babies abroad. Kinda like a video game. And clearly, people shouldn't be assassinated for merely playing video games.