Question

With God's help,
I wanted to ask: to what extent does the Rabbi engage in dialogue with positions in the religious world that disagree with him? There is a feeling (and sometimes you also say this explicitly) that the Rabbi treats the different positions as straw men, without even really reading them internally, even though there are responses and discussions addressing the positions the Rabbi presents. For example, in order to present the various “neo-Hasidic” positions, the Rabbi presents Rabbi Doron (whom the Rabbi does not know, and who also presumably is not an “intellectual” in the sense that he can provide an external justification for his thought, unlike other thinkers in that world). I have never seen the Rabbi address thinkers personally through an actual dialogue (it could be that I am mistaken or exaggerating, but that is the spirit of things).
Likewise—and this, you know from personal experience—the ability to explain through text is always fragmented and partial, certainly when it comes to complex claims that are not necessarily presented in syllogistic form, and therefore live conversation is necessary in order to understand the other side.
This is written out of sincere appreciation and a desire for faith-based give-and-take.