Here’s a debate between two podcasters — one feminist, the other very much anti — which went rather poorly. None of them is a specialist in the subject. None shows discipline in their thought. Both make very cringey remarks. As someone on Facebook commented in one of the debater's feed:
"The level of demagoguery on your part in this shit-show is just outstanding. I understand that you felt defensive because of his accusations against you but it was just horrible to watch. name-calling, mind reading, ad-hominems, treating your opponent as a part of a collective instead of an individual. I don't get how can anyone think that it was a good performance. anyone who can think skeptically would recognize all of the logical fallacies you used. Seems like the audience was an audience of true believers, not of skeptics."
In contrast, here’s a discussion by the trio of Boghossian and his co-authors on the topic of "Is intersectionality a religion". All members of the trio are (or used to be) members of the academic community and are familiar with the academic discourse. The discussion begins with defining the terms "intersectionality" and "religion". All three are well read in the field, and offer an engaging discussion:
Speaking of discussions, I was pleasantly shocked the level of civility in this conversation about Brexit between two people holding opposite views. The moderator allowed them to speak at length. They did not interrupt each other. They addressed each other’s points. It was so unlike many talk shows, perhaps the most glaring example being RT’s CrossTalk, it was a pleasure to watch: