I think that description fits dipshits like Tucker Carlson much better though.
And I don’t like formal debates either as no debate I’ve ever watched to this day has had a moderator who would be willing to keep the debaters on topic and force concessions when they try to evade, move goal posts etc. I prefer live, online discussions much more.
And platforming morons is only bad when one can’t debunk them, or when one is too kind and meek to actually properly push back. This is why I like Professor Dave and a lot of the people hosting The Line. They do not argue in that docile way typical of leftist commentators. They call their opponents out for lying, force concessions, and do not act kindly to them (unless they’re literally just misguided).
I was talking about the “playful banter with the most evil people in the world” text when I gave the Tucker Carlson example.
Their religion debates are mostly against evangelicals and biblical literalists, who generally do think that their beliefs are rational, so an in-depth deconstruction is really beneficial, a lot of the time not to the caller but to the impartial layperson viewer.
I understand your criticism here, but also one can’t make do without the opposition making some content like this, especially when this sphere is dominated by uneducated right-wingers like Joe Rogan.