[noodles_nomore]

Refusing a good faith debate with an audience of millions of people is silly. Insisting that a good faith debate has to be done in real time is silly. The only salvation for this rotten society is a return to literacy.

[lostlogin]

> Insisting that a good faith debate has to be done in real time is silly.

A live show has less risk of sections being edited. Why is it silly?

[kgwxd]

Because it still doesn't provide enough time to verify or refute any claims being made, especially when one sides strategy is to make a barrage of claims to trip up the other for as long as possible. If most people saw the use of that tactic as a clear sign of weak arguments and question dodging, it wouldn't be such a silly thing because it would server to expose that. But it turns out that kind of thing is a form of entertainment for many people and they like to watch their guy "win" against the other. That's a problem on both sides, but objectively a far more dangerous problem with the topics the right decides to utilize the tactic with.

[lostlogin]

I had completely misunderstood your point and agree with you.

[kgwxd]

I'm not OP so I can only say I think that was the point they were trying to make.