Answer

Greetings.
 
Thank you for your comments. I must say that I disagree with almost all of your claims, and I will explain briefly.
A. In my opinion, Yaron Yadan is not wicked, nor does he know his Master and rebel against Him. This is genuinely what he thinks, and these are the conclusions he has reached. The fact that he has Torah knowledge does not make him someone who knows his Master. What matters is the understanding that this knowledge obligates him. If that understanding is absent, then even if he were a world-class Torah expert who knows every detail in Jewish law and the Talmud, he would still be considered like a captured infant who was led astray. From his perspective, Torah knowledge is like the knowledge of a researcher of Native American culture about their culture.
B. His comments were substantive from his point of view, and some of them definitely do carry weight. Moreover, many people think they are persuasive. That is precisely why it is important to present the counterarguments and explain why, in my opinion, he is mistaken. Ignoring him leaves the stage to him and people like him and leaves the public confused, because the feeling is that there are good arguments there (and indeed there are), and that they have no answer. By the way, in my opinion, usually those who adopt the strategy of ignoring are the ones who do not have good answers to the questions, and then the easiest thing is to entrench themselves behind quotations that exempt them from addressing the difficulties. If there are answers, one is obligated to present them.
C. The current situation is that those who answer these arguments are usually apologists of a very low level, outreach explainers, or rabbis, and so the picture created online is of smart people against fools with no answers. The time has come for intelligent answers to be presented as well, and not to leave the impression that a religious worldview is stupid and has no answers.

D. Even if there are some who will be persuaded by him and not by me, if I do not respond they can still read his arguments and be persuaded. So why not respond and try to persuade them? And even if they are not persuaded, then opposite them there are others who would have been persuaded, and because I answered they were not persuaded. And there is an important point here: in my opinion, it is not right always to be concerned about those who do not understand at the expense of those who do. That caters to the lowest common denominator, and unfortunately that is the prevailing approach in religious outreach. That is why we lose the talented and remain with the less talented and less courageous ones (those who do not dare to take the step and leave).
E. In general, I see in your words an underestimation of the public—as if they cannot understand complex arguments. I do not share that assessment. If you present arguments clearly, many will understand. And even if not, as I said, I am not willing to mortgage the wise for the sake of the fools.

F. The sayings of the Sages that you quote are not relevant to the discussion, mainly for two cumulative reasons: 1. Because I do not see them as binding dicta. This is not Jewish law. 2. These are guidelines that need to be applied in light of current reality and contemporary considerations. They were written in a completely different reality, in which completely different problems prevailed, and with people and arguments of an entirely different kind. A simplistic application of Talmudic guidelines in our time is a serious conservative mistake, both in terms of truth (because it is not correct to do so) and tactically (because it is harmful in terms of the results).