
I debated Steve Bannon. It didn't turn out the way I expected - rishabhd
https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/574867/?single_page=true
======
lawlessone
An idiot learns a lesson.

>So, no, I personally would not accept an invitation to debate “Resolved,
husbands should be allowed to beat their wives,” or

>Obviously, I did not think I was doing anything like that in debating Steve
Bannon.

>The formal portion of the debate between Bannon and me was brought to an end
by a stroke of the clock. But the strange result ensured that the actual
debate continues. Can we reason our way out of the political nightmare into
which unreason has led us? That question remains open still.

Attempting to debate these monsters isn't defeating them. They want to win
debates of course. Getting an audience and a serious debate around their
horrible ideas it's what they are chasing, it legitimizes them.

------
beaconstudios
when you legitimise lying to support your cause, it plunges everyone into
chaos because suddenly any piece of information cannot be trusted to be true.
Was the first result a mistake, and the second a correction? Or did the
institution, seeing the effect of the first vote, doctor the result to fit a
left-wing narrative? When both sides of the aisle refuse to build upon truth
as a shared value, there's no way to know for sure and both options come
across as partisan and untrustworthy.

Note I'm not laying blame at the feet of either side; I'm just observing the
increasing partisanship in politics and its effect.

