Q&A: Debates
Debates
Question
After Rabbi Guy Allouf’s failed debate with Yaron Yadan (failed in the sense that apart from shouting and childish arguments there was nothing there; even Rabbi Guy himself does not recommend watching the debate), and his discussions with Rabbi(?) Shalom Tzadik that went up yesterday and are still continuing, together with many other failed debates and discussions lately that always end up becoming personal or turning ugly — and invoking the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Divine Presence — I wonder what the point is of holding all these discussions at all. Should discussions be held only with people who are actually willing to listen to the other side and consider their words to the point of changing their worldview? Is there any value in having a discussion when it is known in advance that neither side came in to listen?
Likewise, in the comments on Rabbi Guy’s video against Shalom Tzadik, the Rabbi’s name came up, and although he referred to Shalom Tzadik rather dismissively, he spoke very respectfully about the Rabbi and said he would be willing to have a discussion with the Rabbi.
Whether that discussion will happen or not is already between you and not me, and I have no hand in it, but my claim there was that it is not at all clear there is any point in holding the discussion, since neither of you is suspected of logical contradictions, so it would just come down to differing starting assumptions, and there is really no way to resolve that. What does the Rabbi think about the topic in general, and about this specific claim in particular?
Thank you very much
Answer
After all that length, I did not understand what the question is, and who the rabbi is, and who is or is not willing to have a discussion with whom. In general, there is value in conducting discussions for the sake of the audience, even if not for the other side. This is especially true if someone influences many people and there is reason to present the public with another side.
Discussion on Answer
I answered. It is not true that agreement is necessarily impossible. Besides, a discussion like this is also held for the sake of the viewers/listeners.
There was an argument between Shalom Tzadik and Rabbi Guy Allouf. The root of the dispute is whether the Torah can be understood in ways different from what is accepted by most of the sages. Rabbi Guy argues that it cannot, and Shalom Tzadik argues that it can.
The question is whether you see any point in debating Rabbi Guy on matters of outlook, when it is clear that each of you starts from different assumptions and you will not reach common ground.