The "Debate Me Bro" culture that has risen on Youtube, Rumble, Twitch etc is patently annoying because it devolves into howling monkeys with no objective overview as to ascertaining correctness or at the very least scoring fouls by pointing out the use of fallacies in poor argumentation.
Poisoning the Well
Argument of Authority
Argument of the Bandwagon
Hasty Generalization (this isn't the worst)
Appeal to Ignorance (or of Ignorance)
Red Herring
Straw Man (often composed of a combination of other fallacies in a gishgallup*)
Moving the Goal Post
Motte and Bailey (connected to a moving goal post)
and many more.
This kind of thing happens as a result of a weak or absent moderator and a poor format as well as limited time for both the observer and for the presenters. The real issue here is often a lack of good faith, though not always.
So let us start with a high minded-ish example of a Debate Me Bro format.
You may watch the entire thing HERE
They begin by asserting vague "American Interests" without ever either discussing them or coming to a common understanding or listing what they think those interests are and where they diverge. It is in this discussion where the real divide is.
The two sides fall like this: The American Republic vs The American Empire.
The Empire desires to Seize Eurasia, not for territorial control but for financial control over resources for now and for the future.
The Republic desires to develop internally now and to as much as possible live and let live.
The Imperialists refer to Republicans as "Isolationists" to propagandize and portray negatively their reticence to get deeply involved in foreign affairs and meddling on behalf of the various banking interests (Oh I'll do an International/Central Bankers blog at some point)
The Republicans (not the party, but those that do not like an Imperial America and are not Communists either) refer to the Internationalists as Globalists - which has its own negative connotations, though less so. If they were accurate they would just call them all War Criminals, World Butchers or some other epithet.
In either case everyone does it because it's memetic. It packs in dense layers of meaning in a few words and lets one smuggle in other precepts as well. Moving on...
On The Republic Side: War Is bad, it's always bad and is the least desirable state between nations. It results in the destruction of whole portions of domestic societies and economically results often in the growth of "war profiteers" who are viewed skeptically because their wealth is sourced in the blood of dead men and state power as opposed to the voluntary transactions and laborious sweat of a free people.
On The Imperial Side: War is a tool of the State. The State is the embodiment of the popular will and the sovereign is the personification of that will, and is like God, above and beyond the rules that govern the general public beneath them. Thus in such a state there is no morality except that which the State provides and if you are in disagreement you are outside of society and unprotected by it because you are outside of its norms.
War is just Hot Diplomacy and being held accountable is non-existent in a domestic sense because it would require the society to rise up and assert itself over the sovereign who is next to God. For the Imperialist Americans - whatever the State says is good is good and requires no more examination of that than when Solomon told two women to cut a baby in half and one was willing to do that...
The Imperialists will cut babies in half all day. They do not ever engage with the substance of an argument, instead preferring to tone police and have a meta conversation ( a conversation about the conversation) as a distraction topic to keep The Republican off balance. And this works. The Republican is often easily baited and distracted by the bad faith of the Imperialist who wins not by argumentation but by frustration, obfuscation and fallaciousness. It is effective to call someone a Russian Propagandist in less time than it is to counter by explaining all the ways in which one is not the thing they have just been asserted to be.
"You're a big poopy-head" works. Just like bullies picking on a poor kid in their school class or someone who is ugly or short or whatever. There's no substance - but it makes those observing uncomfortable enough that even if they feel it is wrong, that intervening is dangerous to them in a group sense. Easier to stay quiet and not get involved.
Broader in society we now punish said involvement. Zero tolerance in schools for fighting - so even defending yourself or defending others is punishable by authority. This extends to self defense laws in various states where even in your own home you are required to retreat in the face of a threat of death or grievous bodily harm, rather than confronting and subduing or destroying the invader. At the same time the criminal justice system seeks a "harm reduction strategy" where criminals largely are diverted from the prison system (seen as an even worse harm) . This is a true perversion of justice where the prosecutor is looking to do social-justice rather than justice.
Social-Justice in this context means that you forget the victim of the crime, instead you look at the accused criminal as a victim, and apply prosecutorial discretion favorably towards the accused, rather than towards the victim, who in this formula is actually reformulated as the oppressor because they have the advantage of the state (which the prosecutor is now undermining and saying that that is their real job - because it's never about the thing, it's always about the communist revolution).
Whenever an Imperialist (who may be a communist as well) hyphenates a concept, it is not to come up with a better subset of rules for that thing. It is to provide excuses and exceptions to the thing itself. Social-Justice exists to undermine Justice. You can tell from the consequences of its implementation every time. This is because words are a tool and thus a weapon and the armor is plausible deniability.
So in debates like the one linked above or worse those featuring *shudder* Destiny, it isn't important to ever respond to their baiting. Argue like they aren't there. Let them sperg and spit and rage. You have nothing to say to them. You are speaking to the third party always. They want you to talk to them. Ignore them, attention is what they seek. They act like pickup artists negging you to get you to want to be like them and hold yourself to their standards. Don't do this.
rant over.
