The Golden Age of Terrible Debates

While internet debates are often poorly designed and moderated, they are exposing that the Left's worldview cannot stand up to scrutiny, which like Seinfeld, is a show that is based on nothing.

Never before have debates been so prolific…and so awful. Just as the internet democratized commerce and media, it has also democratized debate. Any two yahoos with an internet connection can debate, so debate channels are booming and the superchat money is rolling in. But is that a good thing?

Kind of. But let’s take a step back and consider the debates of yesteryear. And by yesteryear, I mean 2019.

In the Pre-Zoom Age, serious debates required the following:

• an outside group to inquire, propose, host, and fund the debate;

• two experts in their field, usually men/women of letters who agreed to debate;

• agreement on a carefully-phrased question of importance and relevance;

• agreement on a format that allows for both sides to make their case, rebut their opponent, and cross examine one another;

• moderation to keep both parties in line so points can be made, heard, and considered by the debate’s judges (the audience);

• and if the debate were to live on (i.e., be memorialized), either a professional videographer or “in-house” equipment and volunteers.

Such a debate could easily cost thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars and would require of the organizer and speaker dozens, if not hundreds, of hours of time. I should know. First Lutheran church in Houston has hosted many such debates.

Almost any debate that survived this era would be a pretty good one, save for some that were memorialized using subpar recording equipment. I have listened, for example, to many of Greg Bahnsen’s debates, and they remain a blessing to the modern world. The same can be said of James White’s debates, one of which was hosted a First Lutheran. These are good debates precisely because they were carefully planned, formatted, and moderated to ensure an excellent exchange of ideas.

But then came YouTube, and the world was forever blessed and cursed. While there are formal debates on YouTube (basically an online version of what is described above), much of what we see is little more than a food fight. Such debates usually entail:

• a nebulous debate topic;

• two (or more) people going back and forth, with loads of interruption and crosstalk;

• few expert qualifications from the speakers, though qualifications can definitely be overrated;

• virtually no moderation;

• good recording equipment (thank you Shure); and

• the debaters engaging from their home instead of being together in the same studio.

The appeal of the internet debate, then, is obvious: they require very little planning, travel, or money. But they almost always lack the kind of substance and clarity that can serve as a jumping-off point for future study. And there is surely something lost with the slight lags of Wi-Fi or outright technology failures.

However, all is not completely lost. From this morass of mostly awful engagements have come some fascinating and fruitful exchanges, and one huge win: the mass exposure of ideas is demonstrating that the Left is incapable of keeping up. While I don’t like everything online from the “Right” side of the spectrum, by-and-large, in the Wild West format of the internet, the Left has not fared well. Without the cultivated protection that the Left has historically enjoyed from the media and from academia, their ideas are not standing up well to scrutiny; and it is glorious to watch.

Some examples:

- when Tim Pool got a liberal to declare that smoking meth while pregnant was wrong, but yet abortion was somehow okay;

- Andrew Wilson’s exposure of the Nihilism of Gamer and YouTuber Shaun “Hutch” Hutchinson;

- Sam Sedar’s lack of coherence being exposed in a debate on Jubilee;

- Joe Rogan repeatedly exposing CNN’s lies.

The problem for the Left is that its moral, social, and political philosophy is, like Seinfeld, a show based on nothing. Once a debate gets past the question at hand (like boys participating in girls’ sports, abortion, homosexuality, or gun control) you will find the Left just doesn’t have ethical grounds for any of the values it espouses. The moral framework of the Left is little more than a “dog’s breakfast” of Postmodernism, Nihilism, personal preferences, and a dash of “human flourishing.”

What the Internet offers is the time — the BLESSED TIME — to expose what a 2.5- hour debate held once a year cannot. And TV…forget about it. Four-minute soundbites will never be able to address the underpinnings of a person’s strategic worldview.

But on the internet, the Christian (or even someone close like Tim Pool), who understands the absurdity and emptiness of the godless Left (and the godless Right for that matter!), can keep asking: “Why?” Eventually, the futility of such a worldview is exposed. While I disagree with his vulgarity and Eastern Orthodoxy, Andrew Wilson has popularized the Transcendental Argument for God in a way that probably has Greg Bahnsen smiling from heaven. In his thousands of hours of debates with all manner of Leftists, Wilson has put the axe to the root, and he is not content to just say “I think this is good,” while the other side endlessly declares “I think this is bad.”

In constantly asking the Left to underscore their views with a satisfying moral framework, Wilson has exposed that the Left cannot offer one. This is because the moment they do, they will inevitably have to exclude someone or something. Because they are unwilling to pay that price, they will never be able to offer a standard that is applicable to all people. Therefore, none of their moral or political ideas are applicable to anyone other than the speaker! So why bother!?

Debate requires Truth with a capital “T”, and the Left is not committed to Truth, so their arguments necessarily falter. Unless you consent to God, you can’t consent to Truth. If you don’t consent to Truth, then every debate of substance will default to an argument over preferences. While far too many will still choose to live in Plato’s dark cave of ignorance, a majority of sane people will vote for a coherent program that aligns with reality and prosperity. Since all people are made in the image of God, a populism based on reality is bound to emerge. The futility of the Left — no longer protected by a censorship class — needed to be exposed. And now, thankfully, it has.

While millions on the Left do not yet see how the rug is being pulled out from under them, and while they still live like the Christians they reject, the mass exposure of the bankruptcy of the Left is a boon for the world. This is the case even if the cost is ultimately a debate format and style that is defined by interruption, stupidity, and a lack of moderation.

Given how hard it is to put together an in-person debate, I suppose if I had to choose between the Bronze Age of Great Debates and the Golden Age of Terrible Debates, I would reluctantly choose the latter (although I’ll continue to offer the former). For the volume of opportunity that has resulted from it shows the world how vapid a world without God really is. Perhaps this process, then, might just be a piece of the revival that we have been praying for.

Photo Credit- anthonyblogan. com