The Worst Kind of Debater Ever

Breaking down what happened in the debate between Dave Smith and Andrew Wilson

After a crazy month of May for political commentator and Christian conservative Dave Smith, including appearances on the Joe Rogan Experience, Tucker Carlson Show, and a spicy debate against Chris Cuomo over his coverage of COVID-19, I was pleasantly surprised to hear of another planned debate on the topic of libertarianism vs. Christian populism. I was planning on writing a critique of Christian populism/nationalism at some point, so this especially piqued my interest as I hoped I could use the context of the debate as a springboard for my post.

Dave Smith began his opening remarks with an off-the-dome soliloquy on paleoconservatism. He had seen that word in Andrew’s Twitter bio, so he began by showing his respect for the intellectual history behind his opponent’s ideology and describing how the writings of Pat Buchanan and Paul Gottfried had left an impression on him. As the debate went on however, what became very apparent was what Dave missed from Andrew’s Twitter bio. It was something I only saw when checking his bio for myself approximately 30 minutes later after closing the video in disgust with 2 hours and 30 minutes of debating still left:

“Bloodsports Debater.”

Dave Smith is no stranger to debates. Over the years he has done a lot of them, both high and low profile, against both libertarians and people with other backgrounds. He is, in my opinion, quite good at it too. He’s a persuasive and dynamic speaker who is quick on his feet and draws from a rich intellectual background. Dave Smith is a good debater in the way that counts. In the normal way. But Dave never competed in competitive debate in high school or college. He went into the debate thinking it was going to be like how debates should be: a battle of wits, arguments, and facts for the ultimate goal of persuasion, education, and the pursuit of true knowledge. Instead, he got a taste of how bizarre debate can really be.

I’m not going to write about bloodsports debating itself extensively. For a full explanation and critique, I would highly recommend the article linked here. My short synopsis: bloodsports debate is a form of debate for sport where the ultimate goal is the appearance of winning at all costs. Instead of a clash of ideas, these debates are pointless displays of rhetorical sophistry and arrogance. I’ll leave the meat of the critique to the article linked above though; the main focus of this write-up is to chronologically document and analyze what happened and use it to highlight just how dumb and impotent bloodsports debating is in the context of a quality, good-faith debate.

Opening Remarks

After a brief, stalling introduction in which Andrew promotes his “Not today, degenerate” mug while holding a cigarette, he began his opening remarks. It became clear fairly quickly that he didn’t have a perfect grasp on libertarianism, slipping into some fairly obvious errors early on.

If people really do own themselves, then we really can’t engage with any voluntary actions they take with each other and stop them, overrule them, or force them not to do those actions.

Well, no. The idea that one cannot stop voluntary actions without violating self-ownership is absurd. Ever heard of a bribe? And while libertarian ethics do not permit the use of force to disallow a truly voluntary action, there are mechanisms (i.e. contracts) to turn voluntary actions into involuntary actions, at which point force may be used to disallow the action. Of course, one can argue that such mechanisms are inadequate or that they don’t scale to large societies such as the US, but that isn’t what Andrew is saying. Let’s keep going.

By this logic, we can’t outlaw incest and prostitution, we can’t outlaw gay marriage, we can’t outlaw polygamy, we can’t even outlaw unaliving yourself, all things which Christian ethics point to as absolutely immoral. Dave can’t really say that they are though.

What? Of course he can! Does Andrew really believe that libertarians believe everything that is voluntary is moral? It is fair to complain that too many libertarians fall into this type of thinking, but the ideology itself certainly says nothing of the sort! Dave corrects Andrew on this in his speech so I won’t spend much more time on it, but I bring it up to highlight just how poor Andrew’s knowledge of libertarianism is. I can, of course, forgive people for not understanding libertarianism, but it is much less forgivable to get basic stuff wrong when publicly debating against it. It was at this point in the debate that I started to question whether Andrew was incredibly stupid or just dishonest.

[Christians] have every right to rule as much as the secularists and the right to wield State power how we see fit to exercise our will, just as the libertarian Mr. Smith wants to do himself and as the socialist wants to do.

Andrew spends the next minute talking about how it’s hilarious that libertarians want State power. I’m not sure what he finds funny about it, but this quote seems to suggest that the perceived irony is that libertarians seeking State power makes them no better under their own belief system than statists seeking State power. The obvious response to this is that libertarians seek State power to destroy State power, making them fundamentally different from the rest. Does Andrew really not see this obvious response? I remind you, dear reader, he is a bloodsports debater. His goal is not to trap Dave in a contradiction so much as making it seem like he’s trapping Dave in a contradiction.

Anytime in the past I have seen Dave pushed on these “ought” claims, he’s somewhat evasive and dodgy…

This was a remark I missed the first time, but upon rewatching it knowing what I know now, I believe this was tactically said to stick in the audience’s mind that Dave is “evasive and dodgy,” setting the table for Andrew aggressively questioning Dave and saying that Dave is dodging or refusing to answer the question when he tries to respond with context or nuance. Bloodsports debate, everyone!

Self-Ownership

Dave, can you demonstrate for us how you own yourself?

Oh dear, he’s attacking self-ownership? This is gonna be bad.

AW: I think it’s a social construction when you say you own yourself.

DS: I didn’t say it’s not a social construction.

AW: Well then you don’t own yourself?

What? Does Andrew think that something being a social construction means that it doesn’t exist? He would make a terrible social scientist then! But never mind that, if Andrew was trying to counter with that idea, why didn’t he instead just plainly state that something being a social construction means that it doesn’t exist, so ownership doesn’t exist? The answer is, of course, bloodsports debating. It sounds like, to someone only judging rhetoric and not truth, that Andrew has caught Dave in a contradiction, and that Dave is on the ropes. That perception seems to be all Andrew cares about.

I think that the definition of ownership would be [sic] a social construct in which you and I, via agreement criteria, decide that X thing becomes property which is assigned to me.

In the context of the debate, Andrew was explaining what he thinks ownership is. Dave didn’t push back against this definition because it still supports the idea that you own yourself, which Andrew conceded followed from his definition. At this point, a visibly baffled Dave simply responds “ok.” He was wondering what the point of the exercise was, since all Andrew did was challenge the concept of self-ownership only to concede that self-ownership exists. As we’ll see, the point of this exchange was for Andrew to sneak in his heavily flawed definition of ownership.

AW: What if we change the social construction of ownership to mean you can own a person? Does that mean that people no longer own themselves?

DS: Well the difference here, and it’s the word that I mentioned that you didn’t, is that I would say that ownership would imply that you’re justified in that claim.

AW: How are you justified in that claim?

DS: How am I justified in the claim of owning myself?

AW: Yeah…

Especially in reading this on paper (metaphorically), I understand the point Andrew is making. He is trying to understand why ownership as a concept is something that should be respected outside of the fact that it is a social norm. If it only exists because we say it exists, then the question of whether societies can disregard property rights whenever they wish is purely utilitarian and up for debate. This is actually an excellent point of discussion, and it was something I was hoping would be brought up in this debate. Unfortunately, because of Andrew’s debate tactics, the point never really gets addressed.

Take a look at his first few questions. “What if we change the social construction of ownership to mean you can own a person? Does that mean that people no longer own themselves?” No, obviously not! If Andrew really thought libertarians believed that you can just change the social norms around ownership, he is incredibly stupid. But he’s not stupid. He’s a bloodsports debater. He asked that question knowing that Dave would respond that libertarians believe that ownership is about the right to control the use of something, not the mere ability to do so. So why didn’t he just plainly ask Dave why we should respect property rights, or why respecting property rights inherently has moral value? He would have if he cared about demonstrating the superiority of his ideas.

Instead, look at the question he asks. “How are you justified in that claim (that X thing is your property)?” This question is a little unclear, hence Dave’s confusion. Is he asking why Dave has a right to control himself? Is he asking where it comes from? Is he asking why he should respect it? Is he asking whether it has moral value? Now, I will give grace here and say that perhaps Andrew meant to ask why Dave has the right to control himself and just got his how/why mixed up. But the entire point that I’ve been making is that if Andrew only voiced his criticism plainly instead of asking a bunch of dumb questions that point to the idea that he doesn’t think property rights matter, this debate could’ve been much more fruitful.

…you just said you agreed it’s a social construction, so if we agree that it’s a social construction, then we can own other people via social construction. That would be justified!

I just defended his question, but I can’t defend this. No, it wouldn’t be justified. The glaringly missing premise in this argument is that property rights are justified because they’re a social construction, something Dave never said. But Andrew concludes this absurd argument with a laugh, as if he just destroyed Dave’s whole philosophy. To any normal person expecting this to be a debate on the merits of their ideas, Andrew comes across very poorly here for arrogantly making such a dumb argument. But in the context of bloodsports debate, Andrew seems like he’s getting the better of Dave here.

AW: Do people own themselves? Is that a justified position or isn’t it?

DS: I’m saying that yes, I think it is. But again—

AW: Then can you demonstrate it?

DS: What would you mean by that? What would it mean to demonstrate that you own yourself.

AW: You would have to prove that you own yourself!

DS: That I can control myself, or what? Again, just be clear about what you’re asking.

AW: Well here, I’ll give you an example to the contrary: I have seen throughout all of human history that human beings seem to be able to own other human beings without much problem. That doesn’t seem to be a problem. As long as the social construction of ownership of the time states that you can own another person, you seem to be able to just fine.

DS: Right.

AW: So this axiom of self-ownership is not obvious to me!

Another string of nonsensical questions. In the broader context of the debate, Andrew seems to be asking Dave to explain why there is an “ought” aspect of property rights. That is what he said in his opening remarks, and that was the difference between his conception of ownership and Dave’s. So why does he go about asking that question in such a confusing way? You cannot “demonstrate” an “ought,” so that question doesn’t make sense. And then he says that slavery is an example of the contrary! Wait, was he asking Dave to explain why there is an “ought” aspect of property rights or not? If so, how is human beings having control of other human beings an example of self-ownership not existing? It is an example of the right of self-ownership not being respected, sure, but it doesn’t disprove the “ought” aspect of ownership. His last statement here drives home how he’s equivocating his own definition of ownership (the ability to control the use of something) with Dave’s (the justified ability, or right, to control the use of something).

When I go so far in the weeds of the argument, it’s easy to lose the bigger picture, so let me step back for a second. Andrew just tried to disprove the concept of self-ownership by pointing out violations of that right. Does Andrew really think it hasn’t ever occurred to libertarians that the right of self-ownership has been violated in the past? In making this argument, he revealed his profound stupidity, or else he understood the equivocation he was making and dishonestly chose to make the argument anyway.

To Dave’s credit, he jumped on the earlier point I was making by asking how that proves that self-ownership (under his definition) doesn’t exist, though I will say, I’m not sure he caught on to the equivocation Andrew was making at that point.

DS: So what demonstrated that people owned other people throughout time? Prove that to me. The same way you just said to me “prove to me that I own myself.”

AW: I did prove that to you. I’ll prove that to you again.

No he didn’t.

DS: You just asked me to prove that I own myself, and then you asserted that throughout history people owned other people, so prove that.

AW: Yeah, but we already did, and let me explain how. You and I already agreed that ownership is a social construction, and that, throughout history, the social construction had changed where people were able to own other people via the social construction. So whatever the social construct is of the day, that’s all it is. As long as you agree that ownership is a social construction, you basically have to bite that bullet, right?

First of all, if you’re keeping track of the argument here, Dave was throwing Andrew’s own question (that is, why does Andrew think those people’s claims of ownership over other people were justified?) back at him in the same way that Andrew asked his question to Dave, so Andrew’s answer, regardless of validity, still missed the mark because he didn’t justify those claims of ownership.

As for the answer itself, while Dave agreed that ownership is a social construction, that doesn’t mean the definition of ownership can be changed willy-nilly. Ownership as a concept is fixed and unchanging, regardless of whether it’s a social construct or not. What Andrew was suggesting was not that ownership can allow for people to own other people, but that societies can ignore property rights in favor of recognizing an illegitimate claim of ownership to be legitimate, and he was furthermore endorsing this approach. I wish he would only say that, because it’s an interesting topic of discussion! Instead, we get this.

DS: …I don’t exactly understand the question you’re asking me. Are you asking me to say how I could prove that it is moral that one person should own themselves rather than someone else own them? Is that the question?

AW: No, that’s not the question. Here’s the question, let me explain it to you. The non-aggression principle revolves around the idea that human beings own themselves, correct?

DS: Yes.

AW: Yes, okay. So the thing is, you and I can agree that there’s been tons and tons of slavery throughout human history, correct?

DS: Mhm.

AW: Okay, so those people clearly own those other people, so this has to be a social construction of agreement. We agree you own it, so therefore you own it. What I’m asking for is some type of justified evidence that that is not the case, and that there is some moral “ought” or some type of demonstration, philosophically or otherwise, that a human being actually owns themself.

“No, I’m not asking you to prove that it is moral to respect legitimate ownership”

*a couple sentences later,*

“I’m asking you to justify that there is some moral ought regarding legitimate ownership.”

*sigh*

DS: Okay, so, just to be clear here, if you’re saying “ownership” meaning just strictly control over who has something, then yes, people can come take all your stuff, and then claim they own it, and if you’re saying the law recognizes it or the society recognizes it, then essentially they own it. So in a sense—

AW: They can do that with people too, right?

DS: Right, and in a sense, I agree with you, and that—

AW: So then you don’t own yourself!

Dave finally cut through the equivocation of “ownership” that Andrew has been engaging in through the whole debate, but instead of letting Dave explain himself, Andrew pretended like Dave saying that Andrew was referring to ownership as the ability to control something was Dave saying that that is what ownership is, and then goes for the dunk of “then you don’t own yourself!”

A key part of having an honest, educational debate is not assuming the opposition is an idiot. A key part of bloodsports debating is pretending that the other side is, at all costs. If Andrew were interested in the former, he wouldn’t have gone for the cheap dunk to derail Dave’s idea, especially because it didn’t make any sense. But he did, because he would rather it appear like he just epically owned Dave instead of actually defeating his arguments.

The debate then shifts to the topic of the origin or basis of morality.

DS (summarizing an earlier AW point): So you’re saying if somebody hallucinated that something was right and wrong and it was horrifically not right and wrong, that somehow that disproves the idea that anything is right or wrong?

AW: If it’s only axiomatic and based on preference, it would be just as valid.

Have you noticed that Andrew only ever attacks a perceived weakness in an argument or belief by assuming a bunch of false stuff around it and waiting for Dave to identify why he seems to have so many misunderstandings? That’s what he did in equivocating ownership as a right vs. ability, then again when saying that ownership being a social construct meant that he can change the definition of ownership however he pleases. And now he’s doing it again. When did Dave ever say that accepting property rights is a matter of preference? Instead just asking Dave how he thinks the validity of moral claims is determined, he assumed, for some reason unknown to me, that Dave determines the validity of moral claims based on preference. Furthermore, instead of just asking Dave why he thinks the validity of moral claims is determined based on preference, which itself is a loaded question, he made a separate point about the problems with determining the validity of moral claims based on preference. Dave was understandably confused as he was left with the task of figuring out how Andrew got from A to D.

It took about 3 whole minutes of Andrew and Dave going on a wild goose chase for Dave to realize that Andrew was taking it as a given that Dave was using subjective and preference-based morality. After this, the debate totally devolved and I just checked out.

Conclusion

So, who won? Obviously, I’m only judging based on the first 30 minutes or so of a 3 hour debate. I hear it got better after the 30 minutes, but I’ll just take their word for it. Back to the question though, it just depends on what you’re looking at. From an argument standpoint, nothing really happened, as I’ve been explaining in excruciating detail. To sum up 30 minutes of argumentation, Andrew wanted to know the moral justification of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle, and Dave answered that, like all morality, it comes from the existence of God. I would say that Dave is the winner because Andrew was on the attack and failed to actually poke a hole in Dave’s ideology, but really there was too little argumentation actually done in that time to declare a winner either way. From a bloodsports debating standpoint, Andrew may have won, because he was able to get away with mischaracterizing Dave’s position enough so that it sounded like he won when he was able to knock Dave’s “subjective and preference-based morality” down. Most of the time in debate, depending on the judge, arguments are weighed only on what is said in the round. Even if Andrew makes fallacious and flawed arguments, he can still win the round if Dave doesn’t exactly expose the errors he was making. Of course, Dave is not a bloodsports debater, so I don’t think he was interested in doing that if it meant that he was going to be debating someone who is just trying to “win” the debate by any means necessary. And so, from the standpoint of desiring an educational discussion and clash of ideas, I would argue that the real loser was everyone who listened to the debate.

The discussion of libertarianism vs. Christian populism is a worthwhile one to have. When it comes to politics, there are many questions that Christians have to answer one way or another. Should Christians try to impose their moral beliefs on other people? Do said moral beliefs include valuing the rights of people to engage in some sins? Is it within Christian ethics to use the cudgel of State power? Are Christians supposed to dominate and rule other people? Which ideology is more workable when applied to the real world? Instead, we got none of that, because Andrew would rather try to “own” Dave than have a good discussion. The only thing of value to be gained from that debate was how dumb and unconducive bloodsports debating is to an actual worthwhile clash of ideas and arguments, so that’s the lesson I am trying to impart on you all.

I know I’ve been beating up on Andrew this entire time, but I want to end by defending him a little bit. If he actually enjoys that stupid and backwards activity that is bloodsports debating, then as someone who respects property rights, I respect his right to have a space where he and like-minded people can do that. After all, Dave went on the Crucible; Andrew didn’t go on Part of the Problem. While it’s understandable for such a busy man to not read the fine print (see the introduction), it’s still his responsibility to know what he’s walking into. But as for Dave and everyone else who wasn’t familiar with the Crucible or bloodsports debating in general, I hope they learned a valuable lesson about how dumb bloodsports debating can be.