> That is done through rational and logical debate... So when you say that I’m inviting people for a debate I have to agree. After all, isn’t that the purpose o

> That is done through rational and logical debate... So when you say that I’m inviting people for a debate I have to agree. After all, isn’t that the purpose of a public forum? This is what you'd like from this forum. Actually, political debates are not what I'm here for even though I participate sometimes. > If we can’t go deep and have meaningful discussions what’s the point? You're not really entitled to a sympathetic audience here. Nor is it necessarily obvious that you're debating. > Just do some virtue signaling and bash whoever is the person we are bashing this time? If you're mad that humans tend to influence one another, why are you here? Does it not infuriate you? And what is virtue signaling if not this very post you've written, trying to appeal to a Hitchens-ian notion that only through debate of your style and terms can we reach truth. You're constantly reminding people of the importance of debating you foe the sake of the public forum and talking about "profecy" that no coward dares to debate you. Is that not itself a kind of virtue signaling? > I’m just pointing out the fact that people are being “deplatformized” arbitrarily and I don’t agree with that. The guy literally went to court, swore and oath to tell the truth, and told the court his entire show was an act to sell soy supplements. He's not news, he's not a content creator, he's a weird surrealist advertiser of postmodernist medical products. Advertisers don't get free rides, they have to pay.