The fact that you think this in a compelling response only discredits you further. The cost is obvious and well-documented. You’re a prop in a narrative. Don’t believe me? Go look at the comments on a Fox news story about liberals. It is narrative reinforcement. It doesn’t matter what the liberal voices say. They’re a…

The entire presumption that people are generally motivated by logic or the strength of an argument has been repeatedly challenged by polling data and studies.

Scroll back up and see my initial comment. There is absolutely a cost. You not only validate Fox, you serve as a prop in their game. It’s really hard to respect your point of view if you didn’t bloody well read my initial comment you’re responding to. 

So, no. Which makes my point about cost far outweighing the undefined benefits.

Is there any shred of evidence that’s ever happened on a statistically significant level? That’s my point. I’m aware that’s the usual argument in favor of these appearances, but I’ve never once seen anyone back up that “conventional wisdom” with anything but assumptions.

“Be an adult” says the pissant who deletes threads where he gets embarrassed. Physician, heal thyself.

Did he nuke your subthread too? I guess he was unhappy with how many more stars I got for calling out his dishonest misogynistic bullshit.

Not a particularly intellectually honest. If you redefine terms to suit your arguments it’s very easy to “win” like that. That’s not how the terms are actually used, in popular or academic literature.

It was mercifully shorter than my last interaction with him, when he was pushing some fringe “anti-imperialist” nonsense of the “I defend dictators because the US is the root of all evil” variety. 

Pretty much every modern economy is a mixed-system, taking elements of capitalism and socialism. The debate is over the mixture, not the general character. The whole Manichean “capitalism vs. socialism” thing is a grand old strawman.

You wouldn’t last 5 minutes in any decently tough political science department. 

That was one of her strongest points. Giving them chances to claim they’re “bipartisan”, no matter how bad faith the claim, is a mistake. Advertisers aren’t moral actors. If you give them an excuse to maintain a relationship with Fox they will.

1. There is absolutely no evidence he “reached voters” on Fox, or that it changed the voting behavior of any statistically significant number of people.

Presumably you’re literate. Go ahead and Google her statement. 

She didn’t “chicken out” you bad faith troll. She made a rational decision based in sound logic. I know both of those things are utterly foreign to you.

I just don’t see the utility to agreeing to these kangaroo court “debates”. Your chance of persuading a Fox viewer is minimal, whereas your value as a strawman for their far-right stable of charlatans and bigots to scream at is significant. The charlatans benefit from the faux-debate. Chances are your…

CIS has ties to white supremacists, fundamental ties, and is far-right rather than just “conservative”. I see a lot of outlets fail to clarify those ties but I’m surprised to see it here. CIS, FAIR, and NumbersUSA were all created by a white supremacist. See here.

One of the usual conservative trolls just tried to leave a comment playing revisionist history about the Puritans. It got dismissed. Don’t try that garbage with me. I’ve taken the courses and read the literature. They were just as brutal to Native Americans as anyone else, and I loathe how they’re lionized. The…

Code Pink went into “apologist for violent dictators” brand of “anti-war” and that drives a lot of people away. 

The problem is it doesn’t really matter what Trump thinks, or what his inconsistent ideological preferences are, if Bolton can gin up an incident. Once the incident happens, Trump is in “look tough” mode, surrounded by hawks who desperately want to harm Iran, being fed misinformation that will lead him to think such a…