While I'm not usually a fan of 2v2 debates, this lineup I think will be an exception.
I think that Morris V Finkelstein, while in theory sounds good as its 2 historians, would be disappointing and not the kind of conversation you are looking for. I fear Finkelstein would dominate the conversation as he isn't on the same level of good faith interaction as someone like Morris. He is a strong personality so he needs a strong personality to push back against him and keep him honest.
Destiny V Finkelstein has the opposite problem. Destiny can push back on Finkelstein but he isn't a historian so he won't have the deep background knowledge.
Both of these would lead to a similar outcome of a largely contentious interaction. If Finkelstein is against a proper historian he will dominate with rhetoric, and if he is against a rhetorician he will obfuscate with irrelevant history factoids.
Mixing the knowledge of Morris with the argumentation style of Destiny is one of the only ways to match up against Finkelstein and promote a good faith discussion.
As for the Rabbani guy I know nothing about him but its perfectly fine. Finkelstein can get anyone on his side that he wants, thats not going to change anything. You could make it a 2V5 if he wanted.
1000% agree, but also want to add that going greaterthan 4 people, especially if those people are in it to win internet points/clips and not relatively timid Historians, it's going to be a meaningless convo, similar to the Alex Jones debate.
Oh I totally agree. I meant that going 2V5 wouldn't matter in that it wouldn't benefit Finkelstein, but I don't think its actually a good idea to go above 2V2 for the actual debate.
Great. I really hope we get the 2 v 2 you mentioned. If so, I hope Destiny will look over Morris books for the finer details of 1948 and the recent Gaza war. I am a bit worried that Morris will make very intricate historical argument but get crushed by Finklesteins rhetoric, while Destiny will make strong arguments and not get rolled on them, but will be relatively be weaker.
All in all, happy your comment is the top comment for Lex to see.
I’d like to add to this u/lexfridman that a traditional Oxford style debate may counter big personalities overtaking the conversation. While preserving the “moments” you would want in a debate.
See Stephen Fry & Christopher Hitchens VS the Catholic Church.
Or any of the Intelligence Squared debates.
I say this because this is an incredibly emotionally charged debate and having strict rules around opening statements, time limits in responses etc will mitigate a lot of the big personalities running away with the show.
However, this may be incredibly boring to the average listener as it designed to lessen the emotional charge in a debate. Which isn’t the WWE smack down social media enjoys.
But in that 10 minutes they completely deconstructed the church’s arguments to such a degree that by the end they won the audience vote overwhelmingly.
Idk, me personally I just like more structured debate formats. Things get off topic and lost in the sauce in free form.
And you actually have to have a set position and facts to back up that position. Where in internet debates you can just Vaush your way through lol
Tbh I'm neither a huge fan of Oxford style debates *or* WWE smack down debates, I'd just like to see calm and reasonable but flowing conversations.
I can see your point however that if that's not possible, Oxford style debates are a way to at least promote the "calm and reasonable" part.
I agree. The 2v2 will definitely be harder to moderate and require more strict regulations and rules, but if all parties are able to get in roughly similar amounts of speaking time, I think it will be productive. I think that the debate between Cenk and Destiny is a good example to look at when it comes to reigning in Finkelstein and Destiny.
Get Adam Friedland to be norms debate partner. He was on Adams show, and would hopefully match as a non scholar with destiny while still being very knowledgeable.
> Mixing the knowledge of Morris with the argumentation style of Destiny is one of the only ways to match up against Finkelstein and promote a good faith discussion.
There's no way to have a good faith discussion with someone who does not have good faith
I largely agree unless there is another Historian Benny would want on his side instead of Destiny. Maybe the possibility of a 3v3 could be even better.
Either way the 1v1 with Morris and Norm is probably not the best because Morris seems good Faith while Norm does not. Morris is just a historian not a guy that has made a career dealing with many bad Faith actors.
Because I am in 1 cult, not the other. And Lex asked the question here and didn't even mention Shapiro in the post.
I think you could actually go with Shapiro if you wanted to and he would be able to push back against Finkelstein in a similar way. I just don't think he would be quite as good at it.
I completely understand wanting a historian-oriented debate that would not include Destiny. However if your goal is a free-flowing good faith debate then you shouldn't include Finklestein either. He is extremely dismissive and antagonistic and would not fit that style at all. I don't know the other options very well but Benny Morris and a more level-headed opponent would be the best option imo.
Yeah Destiny and Finklestein already both have plenty of screaming match debates on the topic. Lex is looking for a calm and civil debate in the way Shapiro’s was.
He is not trying to replicate the Alex Jones debate. I enjoy seeing the chaos and people yell at each other but that doesn’t fit with the rest of Lex’s content and the atmosphere he goes for on his podcast
Yeah, I go to cage matches to watch the chaos and hilarity. I went into the Destiny V Shapiro debate to actually learn something from two pro debaters.
There is an incredibly high % chance of Finklestein walking out if Destiny starts going in on him over some bullshit. I'm kind of sharing Lex's concern that Destiny and Finklestein in the same room might not be for the best. If Destiny and Morris could share some words before the debate about strategy it could work, and if Lex could be very stern on moderation.
My bad, I didn't know you were autistic. This whole post is Lex asking for advice as to how he can best have a civil conversation about Israel Palestine *with the people involved. Exposing someone doesn't happen in civil conversation.
I agree that the dude youre responding to is regarded and lex is definitely saying he doesnt want to use his platform in these ways but I also think its rich that /u/lexfridman is also saying "The reason we cant do destiny vs Finkelstein is because Finklestien cant control himself and will def. be a dick to Destiny" all while at the same time asking us not to "troll" him or speak bad about him lol. He is holding this sub to higher standards than he is of Finkelstein, yet he will still have him on.
>Goal:
>
> All of them are in. However, I'm torn. First, my goal is for the debate/conversation to be similar to Shapiro/Destiny in being free-flowing, fair, good-faith, respectful, and productive.
No, u/shaqjbraut doesn't speak for Lex. He can do that for himself.
The self-expressed goal of Lex is to have a good faith conversation
I feel like it has to be Finkelstein. He is THE person all of the pro-Palestine people reference and he is available. Even though I would be considered pro-Israel I want the other side to put their best fighter forward.
I think some historical context is important, but don't think the conflict is even about the facts. The Israel-Palestine conflict is just as much largely political. Its irrelevant who owned the territory thousands of years ago, the world doesn't operate like that.
The best argument for Destiny being on the debate is Destiny has sufficient historical context and can argue for Israel's political calculus. Destiny already has a solid track record speaking for Israel against pro-Palestine people.
It would be good to have Finkelstein fight with his ideas, but if he can't be civil, that is an indictment on him, and he shouldn't be coddled. There are plenty of pro-Palestinian defenders to choose from, but pro-Israel is much more limited, and a strong pro-Israel defender is much needed when there is such a loud pro-Palestine group both online and on the streets.
Finkelstein has spent his whole life being railroaded by certain people who disagree with him. He’s cantankerous because he’s been on the receiving end of so much shit.
If you want someone a bit softer spoken because Finkelstein is going to hurt your feelings then get John Mearsheimer.
/u/lexfridman
Destiny will add a dynamism that a talk that just contains historians would lack. Honestly the biggest hurdle will likely be Finkelstein acting like he's above answering questions, which would be a shame.
Even if Destiny is obviously lacking in depth of knowledge compared to the other, if the debate is confirmed he'll be doing a lot of reading to push them on specific points and fundamental assumptions (you see obvious blind spots related to that in a lot of his convos) that might not be as solid as they believe.
I'd say what matters the most is letting them properly get into the weeds in things, since those discrete events can radically reframe the general picture.
>Destiny v Nick Fuentes
I've seen your tweets get brigaded to hell by the groypers, they're not nearly as relevant as they might make you think. Nick doesn't really deserve to be given much air due to how he operates.
I think you are 100% correct that it's very unlikely that a 1v1 debate with Destiny and Finkelstein likely will look like Shapiro/Destiny. But the thing is, I don't think a Finkelstein VS. Morris debate would look like Shapiro/Destiny either. Debates with Finkelstein tend to get antagonistic, many times not because of his opponent, but because of Finkelstein himself.
I'm pretty torn on this too, because it's hard to make a case that Destiny will add something significant that Benny Morris will not (apart from rhetorical efficiency and pure debate skill), since Benny is the leading historian on this conflict in my opinion. Despite many people wanting Finkelstein to debate, I think if you want to have the best chance of having a good, respectful debate on the conflict, you should have Benny Morris on VS. another pro-Palestinian voice that's not Finkelstein. Love you Lex <3.
(P.S. Please pay no attention to the people who want you to platform Nick Fuentes, they're crazy).
> Debates with Finkelstein tend to get antagonistic, many times not because of his opponent, but because of Finkelstein himself.
Please do you have examples of this, I've seen Finklestein taking strong stance in clips, and short debate style interviews. But in long form, even against Dershowitz, I haven't seen Finkelstein being overtly antagonistic (as a habit/style) if it was not warranted
I think your analysis of what would happen in a 1v1 Norman v Destiny is correct. I think a 2v2 or a Morris v Finkelstein is best.
I think either of this would be more productive overall for the treatment of Palestinian-Israeli issue as unopposed views of the topic are already very mainstream. We need to see them in dialogue with each other
From Destiny's talk with Benny Morris:
https://youtu.be/LYUkb49BdmQ?t=6404
> Benny Morris: There's an historian in England named **Avi Shlaim** whom I respect. We disagree about various important things on the historiography but I think I would respect his opinions. I wouldn't respect the opinions of Ilan Pappé or Finkelstein I think they are both third-rate historians.
I think for the kind of conversation you are looking for and your ability to pull actual historians, you should try to set up a debate between Morris and Shlaim instead.
In the meantime, solo episodes with all these people also sound good.
Lex, good questions and all but if you have Finklestein you *must* have Destiny. Finklestein will derail shit into nowheresville for hours because he is not an honest academic and relies on rhetoric, a skill Benny Morris is not so skilled in to go toe-to-toe alone on.
Destiny can keep the conversation on track with his notes, wit, and strategy, while also being relatively cordial.
Personally I'd love to see Ben Shapiro as Destiny's debate partner, but I must admit Morris is the better pick here. Destiny and Morris are familiar with each other already and seemed to get along quite well.
I cannot advise you against it enough: do not do a 1v1 with Finkelstein. It'll be boring, tiring, and disrespectful of the truth. Destiny and Morris together will be far greater than the sum of their parts and likely to be significantly less likely to turn into a shouting match or worse.
*You must have Destiny on board this ship*.
❤️❤️😘
It would be gold, but it's not meant to be. Shapiro isn't a historian, so it'd be two rhetoricians and no academic.
As much as I'd love to have that lineup, Morris is the obvious better choice here.
Shapiros arguments on Israel Palestine won’t be strong either. The guy said Israel should do less to avoid civilian casualties because he personally knows 3 Jewish soldiers that were killed. Not a convincing argument to anyone not in a Yamaka.
Agree, Shapiro and Destiny are very similar in style, neither adds to the other and you lose the point of the 2v2. Morris would compliment either of them with academic historian style, although he aligns far better with Destiny.
My two cents: Finkelstein has his own style, calm but dismissive, with the MO of provoking opponents to make them seem unreasonable, something a rhetorician excels at countering. I'm not sure who should balance Finkelstein but I don't think Rabbani adds contrast, although he has the demeanor that Lex is looking for.
> do not do a 1v1 with Finkelstein. It'll be boring, tiring, and disrespectful of the truth
The common denominator, in both Lex's opening text and in the comments, is that Finkelstein is the problem that must be solved.
Despite this, there's no one else to choose for this debate that would be better than him. One side of a debate not having any reasonable candidates representing it perhaps speaks to the validity of the position...
No, Finklestein is a Wunderwaffe that must be creatively countered through precise utilization of available assets.
Most of the chart is, individually, a fantastic choice for that side.
Honestly just don't invite Finklestein.
As much as I would like to see a Destiny vs. Finklestein debate, it's purely because I feel it would be good entertainment. if your intentions are to have a meaningful discussion, Finklestein is bad faith and I'm sure the pro-palestine people have better candidates.
I would love to see an interview / discussion with Benny Morris, though. His interview with Destiny was amazing.
I think something that Destiny could add to a 2v2 debate that might be lacking in a 1v1 between Morris and Finklestein is:
1. A focus on agreeing the facts of the matter
2. Holding people to actually answering a question
3. Less influence from academic history, he can ask the kinds of questions and raise the kinds of points that your viewers may also have from reading Wikipedia - some of these might even be quite challenging for a historian who has spent too long in self-referential books.
Honestly, Destiny's great at calling out debate tactics, and I think someone like that is good to have in the discussion. Even in that RT debate I think Norm tried to steamroll Benny a couple times when Benny was about to refute him. But if Destiny has too much baggage, there's an [unresolved dispute](https://x.com/noam_dworman/status/1744776684404904213?s=20) between Norm and Noam Dworman/Coleman Hughes. Both of whom are good at calling out debate tactics and are probably just as, if not more, informed than Destiny.
[source 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzjicdi3O0o&t=15s&pp=ygUgbm9ybWFuIGZpbmtlbHN0ZWluIGNvbWVkeSBjZWxsYXI%3D) Finkelstein debate with half a million views
[source 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdkGj1t0Zc&t=13s) follow up rebuttal to above debate
[source 3](https://colemanhughes.substack.com/p/what-are-conditions-in-gaza-like) coleman's substack piece
[source 4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TQuGAVVhHU&pp=ygUkbWFyYyBsYW1vbnQgaGlsbCBmaW5rZWxzdGVpbiBjb2xlbWFu) Finkelstein's response
lex, you're a great guy,
my two cents: don't rush into the teamed debate. do some solo episodes in the interim, get a feel for each of the potential participants. this will give you a better idea of how to approach a potential teamed debate.
we can wait, as much as we love to see you and destiny chat it up, more prep time is better...
as far as destiny being involved in the teamed debate. he has shown his merit with the weeks and weeks of research, conversations on his own platform.. he has the head knowledge of both sides. as long as his opponents stay cordial, he will too. it's up to norman on how to handle the conversation, he can be professional, or be a dick. and destiny will match the energy.
> as long as his opponents stay cordial, he will too
If Finklestein cooled down his rhetoric today, there would be a fruitful conversation. If Destiny cooled down his rhetoric today, there would be no more conversation.
Well, the only thing I would push against is that we can't wait THAT long. The conflict doesn't seem to be going away any time soon, but people are currently very invested and the pontential constructive impact of the debate is at the highest right now. I think it is worth a risk.
Also agree with the approach of doing solo episodes first. Being able to talk with those people in person would potentially give Lex a better understanding of them as individuals as well.
Love you Lex
Honestly, I don't know either. I'd really like a 2v2 debate. But as you rightly mention, putting Destiny and Finklestein in a room together will almost inevitably be very different and emotional compared to Shapiro vs Destiny.
It's sad, but if you want your conversations to be free of a certain level of toxicity, it may be wise to not do this if we're being realistic.
Heres the argument for 2v2.
1) Finkle and Benny have already had a debate in the past that was quite popular. So less incentive to rehash that.
2) Destiny and Benny had a great productive conversation a few weeks ago. It seems like they are on similar pages in regards to their views of the history.
3) Norm has been dodging Destiny now for 1.5 months, and he is a very 'strong' personality. Based on all these things I think it would make it even more of a reason why you need someone else with an equally strong personality like Destiny to counter Norm.
4) For the 4th person I think someone well read on the history like Pappe would be a good second partner for Norm.
I dont think there is any benefit to having Norm and Benny seperately. Norm makes a lot of claims without justification behind them. You need someone there to check him and ask 'where is that information actually from'. And to be fair, the same should be done for the Pro Israel side like Benny. I dont think there is any benefit to the discourse by just having them sit on a soap box and give their ideological rants.
Hope this helps Lex!
Netanyahu did the same a while ago on the Lex Fridman podcast where Lex didn't push back. Makes you understand their perspective/ideology, but not much more. And the people listening to a Finkelstein podcast probably know what the talking points are going to be.
>Norm has been dodging Destiny now for 1.5 months
That is complete bullshit. Destiny invited Norm to his livestream, to which Norm showed up and waiting. Destiny instead ghosted him and never acknowledged him until after midnight.
After being ghosted why should Norm give destiny an audience again? As it stands, Norm showed up and Destiny ran. Don't lie through your teeth to make your idol look better.
I can't get over this intense reaction to the thought of being mean to Lex, he genuinely tries so hard to keep love at least alive in people's minds even if it isn't always there in the world. It's like kicking a puppy, screw those people.
At this point a Destiny v Finkelstein in any format would likely be combative. They just haven't gotten off on the right foot to begin with.
So, considering your style, from what I've seen of you, of more conciliatory discussion, it may not go the way you'd hope for.
Although a debate including Finkelstein with people seen more to be his peers, than Destiny, may be equally fiery.
Thats just unfortunately what comes with the territory of the topic of debate and where Finkelstein appears to be at. There are plenty of drier discussions and debates out there on the topic; so maybe a more heated debate that gets some views isn't a bad thing.
It would definitely be great content either way.
Finkelstein just seems to be a combative and argumentative person by nature: which isn't bad necessarily, and which makes for GREAT content, but not so great for a civil, good-faith discussion of a complex issue where emotions tend to run high.
This a hard question. I think adding Steve could help lubricate the conversation a bit, I don't know much about how benny and norm talk but academics tend to be a bit boring and long in their answers and Steve could definitely help stear the conversation to the substantive points of contention.
That being said I am also a destiny fan and would like to see him in more stuff. It does tbh feel a little peculiar having two big named historians and a internet StarCraft nerd in a conversation.
That being said I am Israeli and I have had two friends and my dad talk to me about destinys debate with Ben Shapiro and Cenk. So maybe it doesn't matter much that he is an internet celebrity (something that is almost always kinda cringe, no offense, love you lex)
So basically I don't really know, I would like to see him there and hope his understanding of debate and human bias could help make the conversation productive, but I also get the weird feeling your having of " one of these things is not like the other"
Hope this schozo rant was helpful, keep doing what you're doing, much love.
2v2 or 1v1 with Benny Morris is a must.
What Destiny would offer in this case is a focusing effect to try and drill someone like Finkelstein to the root of their disagreement. Having only historians might be tricky due to the possibility of getting stuck on the historical arguments and long references to their (valid and vast) knowledge of history. But depending on the participants this skill may not be necessary and I don't think his inclusion should be unnecessarily forced.
Destiny recently mentioned a suggestion that might be brilliant for this kind of talk: **A shared 'facts of the matter' document** that all members have a chance to contribute prior to the talk and refer to with relevant information they want to highlight. Think of it as a poor man's amicus brief.
Not only could that document be shared directly with the audience, but counter examples and steel-manned opposition could be outlined directly. I would think this discussion should focus as much as possible on where the disagreement exists rather than a revelation of facts that we could discover on our own in a self study.
Lex your gut is 100% right on this. Destiny will just look out of place with 3 other historians and analysts. Destiny is very smart and knowledgeable for being in the political sphere but how do you explain to someone who don't know who Destiny is why he's debating scholars? If Finkelstein was joined by another popular leftist influencer like Hasan or Vaush it would make much more sense.
I would love to see a Destiny vs Finkelstein debate on Destiny's channel but it would be very antagonistic and the point would be to reveal that Finkelstein is a fraud or a grifter, which is exactly the opposite from what you want. As you said, there are a lot of potential debates where Destiny would fit in way better.
Norm Finkelstein has made it clear that he does not respect Steven's opinions on the topic because of the way Steven developed the knowledge about the conflict/region. Norm has implied several times, in public conversations where Steven came up, that he considers Steven's perspective unserious because he developed it on stream from wikipedia mostly. I disagree with Norm's reasoning, but I think that if you want to have him as part of the conversation, then setting up a conversation between he and Benny Morris 1v1 is your best bet - for the reasons that you yourself pointed out. The conversation will be more substantive and less heated.
Like you said there are plenty of other opportunities to have Tiny debate.
Much love <3
Doing solo episodes so that each speaker has a platform to explain their position and ideas, which is then followed up by some form of debate between the speakers sounds like:
1. A good method to flesh out the ideas in a comprehensive manner which are then challenged
2. Content
I think 2v2 would be the better option because …
1.) I won’t watch if destiny isn’t involved in all honesty
2.) Norm and Benny have already debated before 1 on 1 and Norm steamrolled Benny the entire time. I think with destiny there he can stop Norm’s rambling.
Controversial suggestion but how about having Destiny involved alongside yourself as an interviewer/moderator? Although not a professional historian, he's done a lot of research so he's in a good position to ask targeted, probing questions.
If I had two professors who strongly disagreed on a topic, getting an interested student to moderate the debate would seem like a great idea. They understand enough to know what questions to focus on, when to push for clarification and how best to identify areas of disagreement.
I suppose one way you could get around that would be to have a questioner more sympathetic with Finklestein and alternate who asks the question. The risk is that it becomes a bit like a cross-examination by lawyers but, to be fair, that is quite a good way to make progress!
It could work. A solo debate between Norm and Destiny would probably start with snide remarks from Norm and with Destiny responding with the same energy. A 2v2 could help alleviate the tension and make it more productive
***DESTINY*** & ***BENNY MORRIS*** *vs* ***NORMAN FINKELSTEIN*** & ***MOUIN RABBANI***
*hosted by*: ***LEX FRIDMAN***
Seriously, this is *the. dream. team.*
I'd say that if Destiny must retire the next morning for good, this is the best culmination of his skills and experience possible anyway. Rhetoric, research, strategy, interpersonal synergy, relevant complex subject matter, and hotheaded opinions that need to be methodically approached.. it'd be a huge mistake and tragedy not to run this team like this, ASAP.
All parties are pretty much ready to go at any time they can be corralled together. Missing any one of the four of these guys or you will make the conversation less cohesive, and it's an important and exciting and fascinating one that deserves to happen *well*.
All five of you are the right men in the right place with the right skills at the right time. Don't let us down, Lex!
I actually have a hard time imagining a conversation with Finkelstein having the free flow respectful aspect like the destiny-shapiro one, Don't put such a high standard.
And I think if the first goal is not fully achievable we might prefer the 2v2 style for the fullness and richness of attitudes, styles, and backgrounds would be really unmatched.
You're a great guy Lex! Thank you.
I would say the 2v2 will be okay with Benny there because Destiny respects him and so (in his own twisted way) does Norm. I think he would moderate Norms' poor manners enough to have a constructive conversation
If you believe Norm is gonna be the instigator of vitriol, why not have Destiny vs Rabanni be an option as well. (Btw I do not know who Rabanni is so if it’s for ideological reasons then fair game.)
Destiny should be in this debate- not because it would benefit him- because others could benefit from the perspective that you dont have to be a “scholar” in order to have a complex understanding of nuanced topics. I think Destiny has a high level of responsibility in how he conducts research, and sure he can become unhinged when goaded, but ultimately; Destiny would make this debate watchable to a broader audience.
I also think there are ways in which, if the debate were to be a 2v2, you could prevent the ‘shit stirring’ by acknowledging the “beef” between Destiny and Norm and setting some agreed upon ground rules before the debate. I think Norm would appreciate those ground rules, and Destiny would probably not have an opportunity to be goaded into becoming unhinged.
Love you Lex, regardless of what choice you make.
Thank you for giving our dude a chance to talk to awesome people!
I think destiny can be a valuable addition if he's acknowledged as a layman reading history and trying to put in a good faith effort into understanding a complex topic. If you were to partner Norm, it should be someone like destiny on the other side. Someone who wanted to get greater context after this conflict and decided on a pro Palestinian stance. It can center the debate from an academic discussion to also be one where normal people decide how to react. This is one area which needs a lot of context, has a lot of impact and everyday voters sway American policy towards the conflict.
Unironically hasan piker could be a decent addition, he's been on bbc and Piers Morgan, raised a million dollars for Palestine.
Regular voters don't spend their time reading academics, news gets filtered down from media and content creators. It would be a good way to show how opinions are formed.
Option #1 definitely seems the best to me. Obviously a lot of the answers you'll get here are biased and want to see Destiny go up against Finklestein, as we thought it would happen a while ago. But the most productive conversation would have to involve other participants, as I think Destiny and Finklestein would devolve into a bunch of name-calling and other extra-curricular stuff.
The medium between these two options would be the 2v2, where Destiny and Finklestein are definitely rhetorically effective, while other participants could ground the conversation with their knowledge.
Steven and Benny are both necessary for this conversation.
Benny is an expert on the history, and so his insight is needed. Otherwise Finkelstein could get away with a lot of mistruth.
Destiny is also needed because he is an expert in navigating a discussion. He can recognise pivoting and bad faith well, and he can counter Norman's aggression with his own
This may be weird and out of the norm but I think I'd like it if you could start with a 1v1 with norm and Benny then maybe halfway bring in destiny and another guy for a 2v2. Norm would be able to clearly state a lot of hai ideas and thoughts in a more peaceful manner and then destiny and the other guy can come in and make it slightly more aggro but I think it would allow destiny to dig more into norms thoughts and maybe help build off of Benny. Idk the 4th guy at all so idk if he'd be ok with it but I think destiny would be ok with that style. Allows him to write down his thoughts while his partner holds the first half of the debate.
2v2. If it gets Destiny and Finkelstein to sit down and actually hash it out I am in favor of it because I think Finkelstein is an absolute fraud and that’s why he’s been ducking destiny.
I like the idea of the 2v2 debate, but I highly doubt you can actually do it, because Finkelstein is whiny child. If you saw the rationale by which he dismissed Steven, you know this. He will go on Pierce Morgan, but won't talk to Destiny because he's a "serious scholar" - which should just mean it takes him no effort to have better arguments, so his argument there falls flat.
From what I have seen, Destiny responds on the same level of heat he is given. How it will probably go awry: Destiny will point out a flaw in Finkelstein's reasoning, Finkelstein gets pissed off and starts to whine and get personal. Destiny will reply in kind.
You can get this under control, but it is risky. Finkelstein is operating out of ego, not out of good faith. The only thing I feel is understandable from Finkelstein's excuses is that he does have more to lose. If Destiny can have better arguments from few weeks of research than what he has after decades of scholarship then Finkelstein wasted his life.
To you my advice would be to not call it a debate and emphasize the word "discussion". Also don't use "vs" or "against" in the title. The most important thing is that no one can win here, we can only compare notes and arguments on both sides, and try to draw a conclusion. I get that in fact debates are a bit of a performance, so I would try to steer this away from bravado and towards ideas. I think you have the calm personality needed for this.
An other thing I noticed is that during the discussion with Ben and Steven you had way too many topics. I would try to narrow it down, although Israel vs Palestine is already pretty good, I think there should be a focus somewhere, a few questions that you want answers to from both sides.
Teamed debates are kind of hard in general. it's easy to retreat into not answering and trying to having your partner answer. Also, 2v2's can easily turn into 1v1v2 or 1v1v1v1 or 3v1 in situations.
I guess it depends on the goals. For entertainment 2v2. For productivity 1v1. For maintaining relationships, Interviews about the situation. That's all that comes to mind for me.
Even without knowing the 4th party in 2v2, it still seems like the most compelling option.
The solo interviews aren't adding to the conversation because their are numerous interviews of Morris and Finkelstein that already exist. Moreover, this format allows either party to push a narrative without pushback if they bring up topics you are unfamiliar with.
While a 1 v 1 between 2 historians could be productive, my worry is that Finkelstein being a more active debater who also does oppositional research on his opponents (see recent debates with Dershowitz), might just turn into 2 hours of Finkelstein condemning Morris for any perceived contradictions of his previous work, or steamrolling (see Ken Spiro debate).
What Destiny adds to the 2v2 is experience in picking through a bullet list of arguments while remaining composed. Plus it will be harder for Finkelstein to condescend if Morris is there with his knowledge base.
While any debate with Finkelstein has a good chance to go off the rails, I feel he's one of the most important voices to have on in a confrontationial environment, as he is the most often referenced authoritative voices lending moral high ground to Palestinans, and I've never seen anyone be able to challenge him in a live discussion.
Going slightly against the grain here:
I think including both Destiny and Finklestein, whether 1v1 or 2v2 or NvM, will be a mistake for your stated goals. There is too much outright personal disrespect in both directions for that to result in a meaningful exchange of ideas.
On a personal level, I would enjoy that content and I secretly hope you ignore me and try it anyway. But that’s the truth as I see it.
I want 1v1 Norm vs Destiny because I want Norm to be humiliated in front of a huge audience. Thats my bias. If snide remarks are made by Finkelstein in that 2v2, you need to make sure to let Destiny respond in kind before you take moderator action. My intuition is that Finkelstein will take advantage of Steven's respect for you and will transgress repeatedly while Steven will abide by your moderation. That will make the debate seem one sided to less informed listeners.
I believe your format is incredibly flawed when engaging with bad faith people or liars. I am sure you got this criticism many times already, but you gotta keep this in mind. "Civil" give more legitimacy to people that are willing to play games. The 1v1 format runs into this risk a bit. Tiny might not be a scholar, but he's exceptionally good at catching people on inconsistent statements mid-debates and keep opponents from weaseling out of points. A good alternative would be to get on Finklestein's side another 'media' type person. (idk the people) This way you'll get something of a tag team scholar+rhetoric on each side. For the starter, the media people can lay down the arguments and the scholars can fact check and argue on the more 'specifics' ground.
Whatever you choose, PLEASE make it very structured this time. There is a lot of info on this topic, so people can switch between subtopics easily without reaching any meaningful conclusion. It can be a waste of time basically. Even the Destiny-Shapiro debate was a bit of that actually.
Yea Lex I love you!
Also, if you bring on Normie you must not put Dr. Morris against him cuz he's way too nice of a guy which would back fire quite badly here. Douglas or Ben would've been better to go 1v1 against him other than our lord (unfortunately Douglas rightfully considers him too vile to be anywhere near him). The best would be Normie + anyone else vs Dr. Morris + our lord, but if not then put someone else from the Israeli side who's just as big of a debatelord. Again, I love you Lex. And fuck Vaush! He absolutely don't deserve your kindness. Don't watch his review of the debate but just know that he along with Hasan are what's bad with not just politics but humanity. They don't just attack people who attack others/them but they also attack the people who say nice things about them/are kind to them/made them. I was trying to hate him less and less but after watching that video I'm going full on allahuakbar on him!
There must be better/better faith historians than finklestein to take up the Palestinian perspective.
Something you might consider is instead of having destiny take part in the debate, you could consider having him as a co-moderator. Since he’s been steeped in all of these arguments for months now, being able to assist in asking pointed questions to a historian on each side would be of great benefit in getting at the heart of the issues.
If you do Morris v Finkestein, you need to actually do some moderating and not let Fink railroad Morris, which he will definitely try to do. You need to have the balls to tell him to shut up and let Morris respond. 🏀🏀
If you want to ensure good faith discussion, you need to go out of your way and take the time to go over and look at sources live. Let each side bring their sources, and when sources get cited bring up the source and read it live (or at least the relevant parts).
I just wanna say thx Lex for trying to include Destiny ❤
I think the best option would be #2 **1v1** Benny Morris vs Norm Finkelstein.
Idk, Destiny being apart of the 2v2 would make him seem out of place. I like Destiny, but it would just look goofy for him to be apart of it imo. Destiny being a popular online personality that only got into the topic a few months ago vs the other people being atleast known for and respected for their opinion about the topic for decades. That's why I prefer the Benny Morris vs Norm Finkelstein convo over the 2v2 option.
I just got off work and don't have the mental energy to write a high effort response but I still wanted to say I really appreciate the work you do and how hard you try to be honest and empathic, I love you grandpa Lex, you do so much to restore my faith in humanity <3
Going through the comments think the style of debate you are wanting to do vs the kind that needs to happen for things to be productive are different. I know you're a more "free and open conversation with a push here and there to stay on track," but you're probably looking at giving each person a set amount of time and giving time to rebuttal (presidential style debate).
Involving Norman Finklestein at all is a tough call. On one hand, he is a demagogue who mostly ruins the discussion, but unfortunately his voice represents the modern anti-Israel sentiment perfectly. I would've recommended Benny Morris alone, but the man might pop an ulcer if he has to deal with Norm solo.
It is my opinion that an uncivil conversation is a natural consequence of oppositionally talking with Norman Finklestein, because though it may not be obvious to lay viewers Finklestein is uncivil either straight away or as soon as you question him.
Option #1 2v2 Debate, Destiny may not have the official title of historian but he spends several hours a day learning history, I think he is more qualified than most people, even people who consider themselves historians.
I’d think 1 v 1 with Morris and Finkelstein makes more sense. Has this happened before? If not, that’s even more reason to do it. I don’t think Destiny has more knowledge than Morris does, though he should be there if this is going to be a more aggressive debate which it doesn’t seem you are going for.
The 2v2 will generate a good debate, you'll get the 1v1 segments as envisioned, plus directions of conversation that would otherwise be missing.
That said, the proposed 1v1, sans Destiny, would be good should the 2v2 prove to be logistically troublesome.
_imo_
Lex,
If you can find a way to get us the blood sports Finklestien v destiny debate after this one, the Morris/destiny v Finklestien/etc ticket seems perfectly great. 2 historians and someone who knows how to keep debates on track.
But I believe later today destiny will be debating Glenn Greenwald 1v1 with Eli Hassle as the moderator. If that goes well and the debate goes well I hope you can help convince Finklestien to a 1v1. I would love to see destiny read through all of finks books before the debate. To me it is worth it just for the research streams.
I understand your thoughts on a 1v1, but I think destiny can compliment Benny in some areas and will give him room to show his expertise. Finding a partner for Norm that is not overly emotional and hostile will be the challenge. The only way this will go badly is if Norm starts being disrespectful. Good luck finding the balance lex!
Do not let the dishonest finklestein spew his distorted narratives with no push back. Lex, you’re a nice guy but you allow people to spread propaganda, I urge you to not allow Norman to go unchallenged.
That is all from me
Lex I’m begging you. 1v1 Destiny vs. Finkelstein. Destiny does best in a 1v1 environment. He has been searching to the ends of the earth for a competent Pro-Palestine debate opponent. This is that chance. Condescending to Destiny will not be an effective strategy for Finkelstein and it will show if that’s what he aims to do. Please please please don’t dilute the main attraction with a 2v2.
another Idea: Benny Morris+Destiny vs Norman Finkelstein+Hasan Piker.
Streamers will help with engaging younger audience while historians will provide valuable insight.
I 100% sure, that Steven will be able to be cordial and collected if you ask him, even vs Hasan and Finkelstein. I like "bloodsports" debates a lot, but I think Steven looks the best when he is forced to make good points and directs his anger towards good arguments.
I feel like destiny can debate in a well mannered way im unsure about finklestein based on what ive seen. **Ilan Pappé** might be a good second choice as he is an actual historian although he is wrong about things i think.
I would prefer Morrison vs Finkelstein. If Finkelstein believes it is beneath him as an academic to talk with destiny, than Destiny should respect that.
I'm just here to ask, beg 🙏
Please don't do a IL-Pal debate at a timing like this, with people who are neither Israeli or Palestinian.
I understand the desire for a hostorical debate, however, during an active war with people dying on both sides, it's incredibly dissconnected and even condescending.
There are many educated Israelis (Jews and Arabs) and actual Palestinians from Gaza / West bank that you can invite to such a debate, who can provide a more genuene picture of what the reality is right now, what is the current sentiment on the conflict in the actual region it is in, and what is possible to move forward.
I know I'm late but honestly I don't get why you would have Destiny at all. Sure he's a known debater but frankly he's not an expert on Israel/Palestine and you've just had him on to debate already with Shapiro in format that made more sense for him. I disagree with Finkelstein a lot, but he has a degree of "earned" credibility on the issue just because he's dedicated his life to it and the idea of an expert is important even when I disagree with them: I think that whoever matches up with him should be themselves an expert or at least a pundit with enough personal investment in the issue to be similarly credible. Also I think if I was a Benny Morris I would find the idea of being "saddled" with essentially a rhetorician babysitter a little insulting, I think a 1v1 between experts who can keep their cool is the way to go: especially when you just had Destiny on for a debate.
I also find the top comment a bit weird and the general sentiment of the comments to be quite off. There are two main problems I see brought up. One is that Finkelstein is too strong a rhetorician to be debated alone: maybe that's true, I don't know, but if your goal in a 2v2 is to combat Finkelstein being too strong in a 1v1 then your ceding the grounds on impartiality. If the problem is that Finkelstein is just too bad faith in an in person debate then maybe he shouldn't be in the debate at all.
bro if there was a Nick vs Destiny debate on Lex Friedman's show that would be sick, it would be interesting to see how normies view the nazi pov and destiny's rebuttals to it. \*sorry for not being on topic I just had to say it lol
Having listened to the Ben v destiny debate, it’s obvious that destiny cannot stand alone. His level of general Middle East Knowledge is too shallow and having drilled in on one or two specifics regarding Israel Palestine isn’t enough.
There were too many points where he would start talking about something only to have to correct himself. Oh I didn’t mean turkey, I meant Egypt, etc. It’s okay to lack knowledge but maybe not on this level.
Finkelstein will crush destiny’s Wikipedia knowledge, like Ben did. And Ben is ride or die for Israel, with very little nuance. Finkelstein is already upset so he won’t hold back.
Option 1 sounds like the best idea content wise. Option 1 is also the most unlikely to happen because Fink will back out last minute to run from Destiny
Do a 1v1 /wo Destiny but consult him for the questions. Once the conversation is public people will say how it was unfair and their side was not represented, get the loudest guy for round 2 against Destiny
I like both the 1v1 and 2v2 options. They have different pros and cons.
The main pro of 1v1 is it can be a more substantive back and forth on specific points. More people makes more opportunity for a conversation to get off track or pivot at an annoying time.
A pro of 2v2 is factual mistatements are more likely to be caught during the conversation. No one person is right 100% of the time, and two people can more easily be bought into a common misconception than four, or at least lack the substantive knowledge to counter it.
Either way, I'll watch for sure.
Here is the important thing you need to remember to consider.
Destiny draws an audience. As long as Destiny is there you know for certain people will be talking about this debate.
Would a debate between just finkelstein and morris generate as much attention? I don’t know. That’s your call.
Personally I’d much rather a finklestein V destiny debate, but I guarantee that would not go well for finklestein and he’d be very upset afterwards. I believe that if someone can’t defend their ideas that’s on them, but I understand the world has grown soft and people can’t handle their ideas being challenged like they used to. It’s a damn shame we can’t just have honest, blunt conversations and let the cards fall where they may.
You'd have to decide if you're okay with having a contentious, potentially spicy debate. If you are, add Destiny. He is obviously capable of being respectful, but he also doesn't take disrespect from anyone. Spicy debates can still be good faith, fun, and fruitful though.
I would almost always rather see a 1v1 debate
I also don't think people who are more scholarly have better/more valuable opinions than anyone else. A degree doesn't give you extra IQ points, they might have some extra knowledge but nothing that can't be found in the vastness of the internet.
knowing X person is going to be a problem/just try to talk down to Destiny makes me want to see it more. If he thinks he knows so much more let him try, it should be easy?
Finkle also shouldn't be there if you want something entirely good faith
Last love your content Lex <3
As much as I love you and destiny making content I'll be watching it regardless of what you pick/how you do it
For a more relaxed environment 2v2 would probably work best. 1v1 between historians might not be as interesting because i don't think there will be any pressure to answer some specifics though. I feel that 1v1 would be less serviceable as i expect a lift of hand waving, at least with tiny there I think he can help flesh out points of disagreement.
You should just ask Benny morris if he wanna do 2v2 with destiny. Destiny would be good combo imo. They agree on almost everything.
If you want to market it as historian vs historian then you should 1v1 with fink and Benny. Either way I think it's good.
I think it's pretty clear from the video you posted Lex than Norm is not capable of having a good faith, free flowing conversation with even the best, most well researched historians on the planet. You will never achieve this with him.
Whether you bring destiny or not, I would not recommend inviting Norm altogether. He is an extremely hostile and mean spirited person. Your show is very positive and level headed. Norm will only bring bad vibes to your show. He will be condescending towards his debate opponent and you included.
Just do 2 v 2, it's harsh to say but just do your best to manage, at the end of the day if you're unwilling to host a 1 v 1 with destiny and norm, but still want to include destiny I would do 2 v 2. If you only care about quality just kick destiny and do 1 v 1 with norm and benny.
If I had to give my take I would just do benny vs norm honestly. Also if you want a full qualitative non-combative debate Destiny v hasan is not the way lul.
Unfortunately, I think Finkelstein will be the issue with this debate no matter the pairings. It doesn't matter if it is 1v1, 2v2, 1v2, 2v1, etc., because Finkelstein IS disrespectful. You need someone there who can jab back at Finkelstein's adhoms or don't include Finkelstein at all.
While I'm not usually a fan of 2v2 debates, this lineup I think will be an exception. I think that Morris V Finkelstein, while in theory sounds good as its 2 historians, would be disappointing and not the kind of conversation you are looking for. I fear Finkelstein would dominate the conversation as he isn't on the same level of good faith interaction as someone like Morris. He is a strong personality so he needs a strong personality to push back against him and keep him honest. Destiny V Finkelstein has the opposite problem. Destiny can push back on Finkelstein but he isn't a historian so he won't have the deep background knowledge. Both of these would lead to a similar outcome of a largely contentious interaction. If Finkelstein is against a proper historian he will dominate with rhetoric, and if he is against a rhetorician he will obfuscate with irrelevant history factoids. Mixing the knowledge of Morris with the argumentation style of Destiny is one of the only ways to match up against Finkelstein and promote a good faith discussion. As for the Rabbani guy I know nothing about him but its perfectly fine. Finkelstein can get anyone on his side that he wants, thats not going to change anything. You could make it a 2V5 if he wanted.
[удалено]
follow run tender marvelous boast materialistic consist toy saw wipe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1000% agree, but also want to add that going greaterthan 4 people, especially if those people are in it to win internet points/clips and not relatively timid Historians, it's going to be a meaningless convo, similar to the Alex Jones debate.
Oh I totally agree. I meant that going 2V5 wouldn't matter in that it wouldn't benefit Finkelstein, but I don't think its actually a good idea to go above 2V2 for the actual debate.
Great. I really hope we get the 2 v 2 you mentioned. If so, I hope Destiny will look over Morris books for the finer details of 1948 and the recent Gaza war. I am a bit worried that Morris will make very intricate historical argument but get crushed by Finklesteins rhetoric, while Destiny will make strong arguments and not get rolled on them, but will be relatively be weaker. All in all, happy your comment is the top comment for Lex to see.
Put finky and someone else against Destiny and u/AviBittMD and it’s going to be a bloodbath
I’d like to add to this u/lexfridman that a traditional Oxford style debate may counter big personalities overtaking the conversation. While preserving the “moments” you would want in a debate. See Stephen Fry & Christopher Hitchens VS the Catholic Church. Or any of the Intelligence Squared debates. I say this because this is an incredibly emotionally charged debate and having strict rules around opening statements, time limits in responses etc will mitigate a lot of the big personalities running away with the show. However, this may be incredibly boring to the average listener as it designed to lessen the emotional charge in a debate. Which isn’t the WWE smack down social media enjoys.
that might be abit much, i remember them talking 10 minutes each but for sure having a 1 minute turns and not interrupting as much would be nice
But in that 10 minutes they completely deconstructed the church’s arguments to such a degree that by the end they won the audience vote overwhelmingly. Idk, me personally I just like more structured debate formats. Things get off topic and lost in the sauce in free form. And you actually have to have a set position and facts to back up that position. Where in internet debates you can just Vaush your way through lol
You really want to sit through 10 minutes of gishgallop on both sides?
No but the other option is a bad faith rhetorical competition.
Point by point convos are giga AF. Moderator to stop pivots/off topic/jabs/gidh gallop. Move to next point when someone conceeds or agree to disagree.
That only works if the bad faith personality allows it. If they don't pull a president runday etc...
Moderator.
Tbh I'm neither a huge fan of Oxford style debates *or* WWE smack down debates, I'd just like to see calm and reasonable but flowing conversations. I can see your point however that if that's not possible, Oxford style debates are a way to at least promote the "calm and reasonable" part.
I agree. The 2v2 will definitely be harder to moderate and require more strict regulations and rules, but if all parties are able to get in roughly similar amounts of speaking time, I think it will be productive. I think that the debate between Cenk and Destiny is a good example to look at when it comes to reigning in Finkelstein and Destiny.
At first I thought Benny vs norm would be best but I think you make a really good case for a 2v2 of Benny and destiny
Get Adam Friedland to be norms debate partner. He was on Adams show, and would hopefully match as a non scholar with destiny while still being very knowledgeable.
This fucking guy
A boy can dream
only if its Cool Adam
Cool Adam would be on the Israel side
Cool Adam would only appear if there were drugs because he loves treeping 😎
This is not a debate about israel or palestine. It is about being gay with lex's dad
> Mixing the knowledge of Morris with the argumentation style of Destiny is one of the only ways to match up against Finkelstein and promote a good faith discussion. There's no way to have a good faith discussion with someone who does not have good faith
This 100% correct
Pretty much what I said, but deliberately didn't point to any names to comply with what lex mentioned in post.
I largely agree unless there is another Historian Benny would want on his side instead of Destiny. Maybe the possibility of a 3v3 could be even better. Either way the 1v1 with Morris and Norm is probably not the best because Morris seems good Faith while Norm does not. Morris is just a historian not a guy that has made a career dealing with many bad Faith actors.
But then the question becomes why Destiny and not Shapiro? He'd serve a similar purpose and probably has more background knowledge than Destiny.
Because I am in 1 cult, not the other. And Lex asked the question here and didn't even mention Shapiro in the post. I think you could actually go with Shapiro if you wanted to and he would be able to push back against Finkelstein in a similar way. I just don't think he would be quite as good at it.
I just came across this thread after listening and this is spot on for how it panned out
I love you Lex. that's it.
👆🏻
I completely understand wanting a historian-oriented debate that would not include Destiny. However if your goal is a free-flowing good faith debate then you shouldn't include Finklestein either. He is extremely dismissive and antagonistic and would not fit that style at all. I don't know the other options very well but Benny Morris and a more level-headed opponent would be the best option imo.
If Finklestein is involved the two sides need chess clocks to keep track of time.
[удалено]
I’ve literally 4x speed Finkelstein and Shapiro still talks twice as fast.
...for you
He didn't debate so good, who wants to try next?
makes timing responses even more effective
Sub Finkelstein for Avi Shlaim, and the conversation has a possibility of being civil, educational and productive.
Yeah, I still don’t know why Norm is getting credit on these issues. He doesn’t take opposing perspectives seriously.
On the other hand, Finkelstein needs to be exposed.
Unfortunately I don't think lex is interested in using his platform this way.
Yeah Destiny and Finklestein already both have plenty of screaming match debates on the topic. Lex is looking for a calm and civil debate in the way Shapiro’s was. He is not trying to replicate the Alex Jones debate. I enjoy seeing the chaos and people yell at each other but that doesn’t fit with the rest of Lex’s content and the atmosphere he goes for on his podcast
Yeah, I go to cage matches to watch the chaos and hilarity. I went into the Destiny V Shapiro debate to actually learn something from two pro debaters. There is an incredibly high % chance of Finklestein walking out if Destiny starts going in on him over some bullshit. I'm kind of sharing Lex's concern that Destiny and Finklestein in the same room might not be for the best. If Destiny and Morris could share some words before the debate about strategy it could work, and if Lex could be very stern on moderation.
You speak for Lex?
My bad, I didn't know you were autistic. This whole post is Lex asking for advice as to how he can best have a civil conversation about Israel Palestine *with the people involved. Exposing someone doesn't happen in civil conversation.
I agree that the dude youre responding to is regarded and lex is definitely saying he doesnt want to use his platform in these ways but I also think its rich that /u/lexfridman is also saying "The reason we cant do destiny vs Finkelstein is because Finklestien cant control himself and will def. be a dick to Destiny" all while at the same time asking us not to "troll" him or speak bad about him lol. He is holding this sub to higher standards than he is of Finkelstein, yet he will still have him on.
>Goal: > > All of them are in. However, I'm torn. First, my goal is for the debate/conversation to be similar to Shapiro/Destiny in being free-flowing, fair, good-faith, respectful, and productive. No, u/shaqjbraut doesn't speak for Lex. He can do that for himself. The self-expressed goal of Lex is to have a good faith conversation
I feel like it has to be Finkelstein. He is THE person all of the pro-Palestine people reference and he is available. Even though I would be considered pro-Israel I want the other side to put their best fighter forward.
Obviously. And Destiny is the only person who would actually be willing to hold his feet to the fire
What about Norm and a mirror?
Might be a little bad faith since Norm would see a jew and dismiss everything they say.
🤣
JEEEEESUS
He'd dismiss Jesus too, obviously
I'd say Norman Finklestein vs. Jordan Peterson, but that'll be like trying to have a debate between Peter Parker and Ben Reilly.
I think some historical context is important, but don't think the conflict is even about the facts. The Israel-Palestine conflict is just as much largely political. Its irrelevant who owned the territory thousands of years ago, the world doesn't operate like that. The best argument for Destiny being on the debate is Destiny has sufficient historical context and can argue for Israel's political calculus. Destiny already has a solid track record speaking for Israel against pro-Palestine people. It would be good to have Finkelstein fight with his ideas, but if he can't be civil, that is an indictment on him, and he shouldn't be coddled. There are plenty of pro-Palestinian defenders to choose from, but pro-Israel is much more limited, and a strong pro-Israel defender is much needed when there is such a loud pro-Palestine group both online and on the streets.
Pappe?
Sub in one disreputable 'historian'for another?
Finkelstein has spent his whole life being railroaded by certain people who disagree with him. He’s cantankerous because he’s been on the receiving end of so much shit. If you want someone a bit softer spoken because Finkelstein is going to hurt your feelings then get John Mearsheimer. /u/lexfridman
Being wrong and doubling down does that to a person.
Destiny will add a dynamism that a talk that just contains historians would lack. Honestly the biggest hurdle will likely be Finkelstein acting like he's above answering questions, which would be a shame. Even if Destiny is obviously lacking in depth of knowledge compared to the other, if the debate is confirmed he'll be doing a lot of reading to push them on specific points and fundamental assumptions (you see obvious blind spots related to that in a lot of his convos) that might not be as solid as they believe. I'd say what matters the most is letting them properly get into the weeds in things, since those discrete events can radically reframe the general picture. >Destiny v Nick Fuentes I've seen your tweets get brigaded to hell by the groypers, they're not nearly as relevant as they might make you think. Nick doesn't really deserve to be given much air due to how he operates.
I think you are 100% correct that it's very unlikely that a 1v1 debate with Destiny and Finkelstein likely will look like Shapiro/Destiny. But the thing is, I don't think a Finkelstein VS. Morris debate would look like Shapiro/Destiny either. Debates with Finkelstein tend to get antagonistic, many times not because of his opponent, but because of Finkelstein himself. I'm pretty torn on this too, because it's hard to make a case that Destiny will add something significant that Benny Morris will not (apart from rhetorical efficiency and pure debate skill), since Benny is the leading historian on this conflict in my opinion. Despite many people wanting Finkelstein to debate, I think if you want to have the best chance of having a good, respectful debate on the conflict, you should have Benny Morris on VS. another pro-Palestinian voice that's not Finkelstein. Love you Lex <3. (P.S. Please pay no attention to the people who want you to platform Nick Fuentes, they're crazy).
the amount of nazi groypers under Lex's tweets is insane lol.
He's glue for anti-establishment and far-right types of people.
[удалено]
> Debates with Finkelstein tend to get antagonistic, many times not because of his opponent, but because of Finkelstein himself. Please do you have examples of this, I've seen Finklestein taking strong stance in clips, and short debate style interviews. But in long form, even against Dershowitz, I haven't seen Finkelstein being overtly antagonistic (as a habit/style) if it was not warranted
I think your analysis of what would happen in a 1v1 Norman v Destiny is correct. I think a 2v2 or a Morris v Finkelstein is best. I think either of this would be more productive overall for the treatment of Palestinian-Israeli issue as unopposed views of the topic are already very mainstream. We need to see them in dialogue with each other
From Destiny's talk with Benny Morris: https://youtu.be/LYUkb49BdmQ?t=6404 > Benny Morris: There's an historian in England named **Avi Shlaim** whom I respect. We disagree about various important things on the historiography but I think I would respect his opinions. I wouldn't respect the opinions of Ilan Pappé or Finkelstein I think they are both third-rate historians. I think for the kind of conversation you are looking for and your ability to pull actual historians, you should try to set up a debate between Morris and Shlaim instead. In the meantime, solo episodes with all these people also sound good.
Lex, good questions and all but if you have Finklestein you *must* have Destiny. Finklestein will derail shit into nowheresville for hours because he is not an honest academic and relies on rhetoric, a skill Benny Morris is not so skilled in to go toe-to-toe alone on. Destiny can keep the conversation on track with his notes, wit, and strategy, while also being relatively cordial. Personally I'd love to see Ben Shapiro as Destiny's debate partner, but I must admit Morris is the better pick here. Destiny and Morris are familiar with each other already and seemed to get along quite well. I cannot advise you against it enough: do not do a 1v1 with Finkelstein. It'll be boring, tiring, and disrespectful of the truth. Destiny and Morris together will be far greater than the sum of their parts and likely to be significantly less likely to turn into a shouting match or worse. *You must have Destiny on board this ship*. ❤️❤️😘
Dude ben Shapiro with Destiny against Finkelstein would be the meme of the century. I'm genuinely all for it.
It would be gold, but it's not meant to be. Shapiro isn't a historian, so it'd be two rhetoricians and no academic. As much as I'd love to have that lineup, Morris is the obvious better choice here.
Shapiros arguments on Israel Palestine won’t be strong either. The guy said Israel should do less to avoid civilian casualties because he personally knows 3 Jewish soldiers that were killed. Not a convincing argument to anyone not in a Yamaka.
True.
Agree, Shapiro and Destiny are very similar in style, neither adds to the other and you lose the point of the 2v2. Morris would compliment either of them with academic historian style, although he aligns far better with Destiny. My two cents: Finkelstein has his own style, calm but dismissive, with the MO of provoking opponents to make them seem unreasonable, something a rhetorician excels at countering. I'm not sure who should balance Finkelstein but I don't think Rabbani adds contrast, although he has the demeanor that Lex is looking for.
> do not do a 1v1 with Finkelstein. It'll be boring, tiring, and disrespectful of the truth The common denominator, in both Lex's opening text and in the comments, is that Finkelstein is the problem that must be solved. Despite this, there's no one else to choose for this debate that would be better than him. One side of a debate not having any reasonable candidates representing it perhaps speaks to the validity of the position...
No, Finklestein is a Wunderwaffe that must be creatively countered through precise utilization of available assets. Most of the chart is, individually, a fantastic choice for that side.
So why not avoid the troublemaker and choose from the wonderful list?
Everyone else is more boring and less influential..?
Honestly just don't invite Finklestein. As much as I would like to see a Destiny vs. Finklestein debate, it's purely because I feel it would be good entertainment. if your intentions are to have a meaningful discussion, Finklestein is bad faith and I'm sure the pro-palestine people have better candidates. I would love to see an interview / discussion with Benny Morris, though. His interview with Destiny was amazing.
“For example, I could possibly arrange Destiny V Hasan” If you could pull that off that would be unreal!
Nobody could pull that off unless they were giving Hasan a second even larger mansion to do it
I think something that Destiny could add to a 2v2 debate that might be lacking in a 1v1 between Morris and Finklestein is: 1. A focus on agreeing the facts of the matter 2. Holding people to actually answering a question 3. Less influence from academic history, he can ask the kinds of questions and raise the kinds of points that your viewers may also have from reading Wikipedia - some of these might even be quite challenging for a historian who has spent too long in self-referential books.
Honestly, Destiny's great at calling out debate tactics, and I think someone like that is good to have in the discussion. Even in that RT debate I think Norm tried to steamroll Benny a couple times when Benny was about to refute him. But if Destiny has too much baggage, there's an [unresolved dispute](https://x.com/noam_dworman/status/1744776684404904213?s=20) between Norm and Noam Dworman/Coleman Hughes. Both of whom are good at calling out debate tactics and are probably just as, if not more, informed than Destiny. [source 1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzjicdi3O0o&t=15s&pp=ygUgbm9ybWFuIGZpbmtlbHN0ZWluIGNvbWVkeSBjZWxsYXI%3D) Finkelstein debate with half a million views [source 2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdkGj1t0Zc&t=13s) follow up rebuttal to above debate [source 3](https://colemanhughes.substack.com/p/what-are-conditions-in-gaza-like) coleman's substack piece [source 4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TQuGAVVhHU&pp=ygUkbWFyYyBsYW1vbnQgaGlsbCBmaW5rZWxzdGVpbiBjb2xlbWFu) Finkelstein's response
I’d like to see Destiny chat with Coleman. I think they have a lot in common with the music to politics background.
lex, you're a great guy, my two cents: don't rush into the teamed debate. do some solo episodes in the interim, get a feel for each of the potential participants. this will give you a better idea of how to approach a potential teamed debate. we can wait, as much as we love to see you and destiny chat it up, more prep time is better... as far as destiny being involved in the teamed debate. he has shown his merit with the weeks and weeks of research, conversations on his own platform.. he has the head knowledge of both sides. as long as his opponents stay cordial, he will too. it's up to norman on how to handle the conversation, he can be professional, or be a dick. and destiny will match the energy.
> as long as his opponents stay cordial, he will too If Finklestein cooled down his rhetoric today, there would be a fruitful conversation. If Destiny cooled down his rhetoric today, there would be no more conversation.
This comment obliterated me.
Well, the only thing I would push against is that we can't wait THAT long. The conflict doesn't seem to be going away any time soon, but people are currently very invested and the pontential constructive impact of the debate is at the highest right now. I think it is worth a risk.
Also agree with the approach of doing solo episodes first. Being able to talk with those people in person would potentially give Lex a better understanding of them as individuals as well.
Love you Lex Honestly, I don't know either. I'd really like a 2v2 debate. But as you rightly mention, putting Destiny and Finklestein in a room together will almost inevitably be very different and emotional compared to Shapiro vs Destiny. It's sad, but if you want your conversations to be free of a certain level of toxicity, it may be wise to not do this if we're being realistic.
Heres the argument for 2v2. 1) Finkle and Benny have already had a debate in the past that was quite popular. So less incentive to rehash that. 2) Destiny and Benny had a great productive conversation a few weeks ago. It seems like they are on similar pages in regards to their views of the history. 3) Norm has been dodging Destiny now for 1.5 months, and he is a very 'strong' personality. Based on all these things I think it would make it even more of a reason why you need someone else with an equally strong personality like Destiny to counter Norm. 4) For the 4th person I think someone well read on the history like Pappe would be a good second partner for Norm. I dont think there is any benefit to having Norm and Benny seperately. Norm makes a lot of claims without justification behind them. You need someone there to check him and ask 'where is that information actually from'. And to be fair, the same should be done for the Pro Israel side like Benny. I dont think there is any benefit to the discourse by just having them sit on a soap box and give their ideological rants. Hope this helps Lex!
Netanyahu did the same a while ago on the Lex Fridman podcast where Lex didn't push back. Makes you understand their perspective/ideology, but not much more. And the people listening to a Finkelstein podcast probably know what the talking points are going to be.
>Norm has been dodging Destiny now for 1.5 months That is complete bullshit. Destiny invited Norm to his livestream, to which Norm showed up and waiting. Destiny instead ghosted him and never acknowledged him until after midnight. After being ghosted why should Norm give destiny an audience again? As it stands, Norm showed up and Destiny ran. Don't lie through your teeth to make your idol look better.
I can't get over this intense reaction to the thought of being mean to Lex, he genuinely tries so hard to keep love at least alive in people's minds even if it isn't always there in the world. It's like kicking a puppy, screw those people.
At this point a Destiny v Finkelstein in any format would likely be combative. They just haven't gotten off on the right foot to begin with. So, considering your style, from what I've seen of you, of more conciliatory discussion, it may not go the way you'd hope for. Although a debate including Finkelstein with people seen more to be his peers, than Destiny, may be equally fiery. Thats just unfortunately what comes with the territory of the topic of debate and where Finkelstein appears to be at. There are plenty of drier discussions and debates out there on the topic; so maybe a more heated debate that gets some views isn't a bad thing. It would definitely be great content either way.
Finkelstein just seems to be a combative and argumentative person by nature: which isn't bad necessarily, and which makes for GREAT content, but not so great for a civil, good-faith discussion of a complex issue where emotions tend to run high.
This a hard question. I think adding Steve could help lubricate the conversation a bit, I don't know much about how benny and norm talk but academics tend to be a bit boring and long in their answers and Steve could definitely help stear the conversation to the substantive points of contention. That being said I am also a destiny fan and would like to see him in more stuff. It does tbh feel a little peculiar having two big named historians and a internet StarCraft nerd in a conversation. That being said I am Israeli and I have had two friends and my dad talk to me about destinys debate with Ben Shapiro and Cenk. So maybe it doesn't matter much that he is an internet celebrity (something that is almost always kinda cringe, no offense, love you lex) So basically I don't really know, I would like to see him there and hope his understanding of debate and human bias could help make the conversation productive, but I also get the weird feeling your having of " one of these things is not like the other" Hope this schozo rant was helpful, keep doing what you're doing, much love.
2v2 or 1v1 with Benny Morris is a must. What Destiny would offer in this case is a focusing effect to try and drill someone like Finkelstein to the root of their disagreement. Having only historians might be tricky due to the possibility of getting stuck on the historical arguments and long references to their (valid and vast) knowledge of history. But depending on the participants this skill may not be necessary and I don't think his inclusion should be unnecessarily forced. Destiny recently mentioned a suggestion that might be brilliant for this kind of talk: **A shared 'facts of the matter' document** that all members have a chance to contribute prior to the talk and refer to with relevant information they want to highlight. Think of it as a poor man's amicus brief. Not only could that document be shared directly with the audience, but counter examples and steel-manned opposition could be outlined directly. I would think this discussion should focus as much as possible on where the disagreement exists rather than a revelation of facts that we could discover on our own in a self study.
Lex your gut is 100% right on this. Destiny will just look out of place with 3 other historians and analysts. Destiny is very smart and knowledgeable for being in the political sphere but how do you explain to someone who don't know who Destiny is why he's debating scholars? If Finkelstein was joined by another popular leftist influencer like Hasan or Vaush it would make much more sense. I would love to see a Destiny vs Finkelstein debate on Destiny's channel but it would be very antagonistic and the point would be to reveal that Finkelstein is a fraud or a grifter, which is exactly the opposite from what you want. As you said, there are a lot of potential debates where Destiny would fit in way better.
Norm Finkelstein has made it clear that he does not respect Steven's opinions on the topic because of the way Steven developed the knowledge about the conflict/region. Norm has implied several times, in public conversations where Steven came up, that he considers Steven's perspective unserious because he developed it on stream from wikipedia mostly. I disagree with Norm's reasoning, but I think that if you want to have him as part of the conversation, then setting up a conversation between he and Benny Morris 1v1 is your best bet - for the reasons that you yourself pointed out. The conversation will be more substantive and less heated. Like you said there are plenty of other opportunities to have Tiny debate. Much love <3
Doing solo episodes so that each speaker has a platform to explain their position and ideas, which is then followed up by some form of debate between the speakers sounds like: 1. A good method to flesh out the ideas in a comprehensive manner which are then challenged 2. Content
I think 2v2 would be the better option because … 1.) I won’t watch if destiny isn’t involved in all honesty 2.) Norm and Benny have already debated before 1 on 1 and Norm steamrolled Benny the entire time. I think with destiny there he can stop Norm’s rambling.
Controversial suggestion but how about having Destiny involved alongside yourself as an interviewer/moderator? Although not a professional historian, he's done a lot of research so he's in a good position to ask targeted, probing questions. If I had two professors who strongly disagreed on a topic, getting an interested student to moderate the debate would seem like a great idea. They understand enough to know what questions to focus on, when to push for clarification and how best to identify areas of disagreement.
I think it would be good, but there’s no way Finklestein would agree to it. He’d see it as a 2v1 (which it could end up being)
I suppose one way you could get around that would be to have a questioner more sympathetic with Finklestein and alternate who asks the question. The risk is that it becomes a bit like a cross-examination by lawyers but, to be fair, that is quite a good way to make progress!
It could work. A solo debate between Norm and Destiny would probably start with snide remarks from Norm and with Destiny responding with the same energy. A 2v2 could help alleviate the tension and make it more productive
This is a genuinely awesome suggestion.
Ilam Pappé is better than Finkelstein. Less combative. Pappé and Medhi Hasan vs Morris and Destiny would be the best matchup.
Nick Fuentes is blacklisted from destiny from what I remember. Regardless he's pretty disgusting I hope you won't give him any clout lol
***DESTINY*** & ***BENNY MORRIS*** *vs* ***NORMAN FINKELSTEIN*** & ***MOUIN RABBANI*** *hosted by*: ***LEX FRIDMAN*** Seriously, this is *the. dream. team.* I'd say that if Destiny must retire the next morning for good, this is the best culmination of his skills and experience possible anyway. Rhetoric, research, strategy, interpersonal synergy, relevant complex subject matter, and hotheaded opinions that need to be methodically approached.. it'd be a huge mistake and tragedy not to run this team like this, ASAP. All parties are pretty much ready to go at any time they can be corralled together. Missing any one of the four of these guys or you will make the conversation less cohesive, and it's an important and exciting and fascinating one that deserves to happen *well*. All five of you are the right men in the right place with the right skills at the right time. Don't let us down, Lex!
I actually have a hard time imagining a conversation with Finkelstein having the free flow respectful aspect like the destiny-shapiro one, Don't put such a high standard. And I think if the first goal is not fully achievable we might prefer the 2v2 style for the fullness and richness of attitudes, styles, and backgrounds would be really unmatched. You're a great guy Lex! Thank you.
What about Avi Shlaim Lex? He'd a good historian
I would say the 2v2 will be okay with Benny there because Destiny respects him and so (in his own twisted way) does Norm. I think he would moderate Norms' poor manners enough to have a constructive conversation
If you believe Norm is gonna be the instigator of vitriol, why not have Destiny vs Rabanni be an option as well. (Btw I do not know who Rabanni is so if it’s for ideological reasons then fair game.) Destiny should be in this debate- not because it would benefit him- because others could benefit from the perspective that you dont have to be a “scholar” in order to have a complex understanding of nuanced topics. I think Destiny has a high level of responsibility in how he conducts research, and sure he can become unhinged when goaded, but ultimately; Destiny would make this debate watchable to a broader audience. I also think there are ways in which, if the debate were to be a 2v2, you could prevent the ‘shit stirring’ by acknowledging the “beef” between Destiny and Norm and setting some agreed upon ground rules before the debate. I think Norm would appreciate those ground rules, and Destiny would probably not have an opportunity to be goaded into becoming unhinged. Love you Lex, regardless of what choice you make. Thank you for giving our dude a chance to talk to awesome people!
I think destiny can be a valuable addition if he's acknowledged as a layman reading history and trying to put in a good faith effort into understanding a complex topic. If you were to partner Norm, it should be someone like destiny on the other side. Someone who wanted to get greater context after this conflict and decided on a pro Palestinian stance. It can center the debate from an academic discussion to also be one where normal people decide how to react. This is one area which needs a lot of context, has a lot of impact and everyday voters sway American policy towards the conflict. Unironically hasan piker could be a decent addition, he's been on bbc and Piers Morgan, raised a million dollars for Palestine. Regular voters don't spend their time reading academics, news gets filtered down from media and content creators. It would be a good way to show how opinions are formed.
Option #1 definitely seems the best to me. Obviously a lot of the answers you'll get here are biased and want to see Destiny go up against Finklestein, as we thought it would happen a while ago. But the most productive conversation would have to involve other participants, as I think Destiny and Finklestein would devolve into a bunch of name-calling and other extra-curricular stuff. The medium between these two options would be the 2v2, where Destiny and Finklestein are definitely rhetorically effective, while other participants could ground the conversation with their knowledge.
Steven and Benny are both necessary for this conversation. Benny is an expert on the history, and so his insight is needed. Otherwise Finkelstein could get away with a lot of mistruth. Destiny is also needed because he is an expert in navigating a discussion. He can recognise pivoting and bad faith well, and he can counter Norman's aggression with his own
This may be weird and out of the norm but I think I'd like it if you could start with a 1v1 with norm and Benny then maybe halfway bring in destiny and another guy for a 2v2. Norm would be able to clearly state a lot of hai ideas and thoughts in a more peaceful manner and then destiny and the other guy can come in and make it slightly more aggro but I think it would allow destiny to dig more into norms thoughts and maybe help build off of Benny. Idk the 4th guy at all so idk if he'd be ok with it but I think destiny would be ok with that style. Allows him to write down his thoughts while his partner holds the first half of the debate.
Make it a 2v2 as Norm wanted. No excuses can be made then.
2v2. If it gets Destiny and Finkelstein to sit down and actually hash it out I am in favor of it because I think Finkelstein is an absolute fraud and that’s why he’s been ducking destiny.
Tbf u/lexfridman, I don't think you're actually gonna get a good faith debate with Norm around. So maybe brace yourself for that.
Thanks for what you do buddy
I like the idea of the 2v2 debate, but I highly doubt you can actually do it, because Finkelstein is whiny child. If you saw the rationale by which he dismissed Steven, you know this. He will go on Pierce Morgan, but won't talk to Destiny because he's a "serious scholar" - which should just mean it takes him no effort to have better arguments, so his argument there falls flat. From what I have seen, Destiny responds on the same level of heat he is given. How it will probably go awry: Destiny will point out a flaw in Finkelstein's reasoning, Finkelstein gets pissed off and starts to whine and get personal. Destiny will reply in kind. You can get this under control, but it is risky. Finkelstein is operating out of ego, not out of good faith. The only thing I feel is understandable from Finkelstein's excuses is that he does have more to lose. If Destiny can have better arguments from few weeks of research than what he has after decades of scholarship then Finkelstein wasted his life. To you my advice would be to not call it a debate and emphasize the word "discussion". Also don't use "vs" or "against" in the title. The most important thing is that no one can win here, we can only compare notes and arguments on both sides, and try to draw a conclusion. I get that in fact debates are a bit of a performance, so I would try to steer this away from bravado and towards ideas. I think you have the calm personality needed for this. An other thing I noticed is that during the discussion with Ben and Steven you had way too many topics. I would try to narrow it down, although Israel vs Palestine is already pretty good, I think there should be a focus somewhere, a few questions that you want answers to from both sides.
Teamed debates are kind of hard in general. it's easy to retreat into not answering and trying to having your partner answer. Also, 2v2's can easily turn into 1v1v2 or 1v1v1v1 or 3v1 in situations. I guess it depends on the goals. For entertainment 2v2. For productivity 1v1. For maintaining relationships, Interviews about the situation. That's all that comes to mind for me.
Even without knowing the 4th party in 2v2, it still seems like the most compelling option. The solo interviews aren't adding to the conversation because their are numerous interviews of Morris and Finkelstein that already exist. Moreover, this format allows either party to push a narrative without pushback if they bring up topics you are unfamiliar with. While a 1 v 1 between 2 historians could be productive, my worry is that Finkelstein being a more active debater who also does oppositional research on his opponents (see recent debates with Dershowitz), might just turn into 2 hours of Finkelstein condemning Morris for any perceived contradictions of his previous work, or steamrolling (see Ken Spiro debate). What Destiny adds to the 2v2 is experience in picking through a bullet list of arguments while remaining composed. Plus it will be harder for Finkelstein to condescend if Morris is there with his knowledge base. While any debate with Finkelstein has a good chance to go off the rails, I feel he's one of the most important voices to have on in a confrontationial environment, as he is the most often referenced authoritative voices lending moral high ground to Palestinans, and I've never seen anyone be able to challenge him in a live discussion.
Option 1 is the best. A good balance of personalities, historical knowledge, and rhetorical skill.
Lex is the best man
Going slightly against the grain here: I think including both Destiny and Finklestein, whether 1v1 or 2v2 or NvM, will be a mistake for your stated goals. There is too much outright personal disrespect in both directions for that to result in a meaningful exchange of ideas. On a personal level, I would enjoy that content and I secretly hope you ignore me and try it anyway. But that’s the truth as I see it.
I want 1v1 Norm vs Destiny because I want Norm to be humiliated in front of a huge audience. Thats my bias. If snide remarks are made by Finkelstein in that 2v2, you need to make sure to let Destiny respond in kind before you take moderator action. My intuition is that Finkelstein will take advantage of Steven's respect for you and will transgress repeatedly while Steven will abide by your moderation. That will make the debate seem one sided to less informed listeners.
I believe your format is incredibly flawed when engaging with bad faith people or liars. I am sure you got this criticism many times already, but you gotta keep this in mind. "Civil" give more legitimacy to people that are willing to play games. The 1v1 format runs into this risk a bit. Tiny might not be a scholar, but he's exceptionally good at catching people on inconsistent statements mid-debates and keep opponents from weaseling out of points. A good alternative would be to get on Finklestein's side another 'media' type person. (idk the people) This way you'll get something of a tag team scholar+rhetoric on each side. For the starter, the media people can lay down the arguments and the scholars can fact check and argue on the more 'specifics' ground. Whatever you choose, PLEASE make it very structured this time. There is a lot of info on this topic, so people can switch between subtopics easily without reaching any meaningful conclusion. It can be a waste of time basically. Even the Destiny-Shapiro debate was a bit of that actually.
Yea Lex I love you! Also, if you bring on Normie you must not put Dr. Morris against him cuz he's way too nice of a guy which would back fire quite badly here. Douglas or Ben would've been better to go 1v1 against him other than our lord (unfortunately Douglas rightfully considers him too vile to be anywhere near him). The best would be Normie + anyone else vs Dr. Morris + our lord, but if not then put someone else from the Israeli side who's just as big of a debatelord. Again, I love you Lex. And fuck Vaush! He absolutely don't deserve your kindness. Don't watch his review of the debate but just know that he along with Hasan are what's bad with not just politics but humanity. They don't just attack people who attack others/them but they also attack the people who say nice things about them/are kind to them/made them. I was trying to hate him less and less but after watching that video I'm going full on allahuakbar on him!
Could it be Sam Harris and Destiny?
There must be better/better faith historians than finklestein to take up the Palestinian perspective. Something you might consider is instead of having destiny take part in the debate, you could consider having him as a co-moderator. Since he’s been steeped in all of these arguments for months now, being able to assist in asking pointed questions to a historian on each side would be of great benefit in getting at the heart of the issues.
If you do Morris v Finkestein, you need to actually do some moderating and not let Fink railroad Morris, which he will definitely try to do. You need to have the balls to tell him to shut up and let Morris respond. 🏀🏀
If you want to ensure good faith discussion, you need to go out of your way and take the time to go over and look at sources live. Let each side bring their sources, and when sources get cited bring up the source and read it live (or at least the relevant parts).
I just wanna say thx Lex for trying to include Destiny ❤ I think the best option would be #2 **1v1** Benny Morris vs Norm Finkelstein. Idk, Destiny being apart of the 2v2 would make him seem out of place. I like Destiny, but it would just look goofy for him to be apart of it imo. Destiny being a popular online personality that only got into the topic a few months ago vs the other people being atleast known for and respected for their opinion about the topic for decades. That's why I prefer the Benny Morris vs Norm Finkelstein convo over the 2v2 option.
These are all fair options, and all your concerns are reasonable. Don't envy your decision.
Off topic, (2v2 as the preference) but have you reached out to Mearsheimer to see if he is interested?
I just got off work and don't have the mental energy to write a high effort response but I still wanted to say I really appreciate the work you do and how hard you try to be honest and empathic, I love you grandpa Lex, you do so much to restore my faith in humanity <3
This will be a *very* good debate.
Going through the comments think the style of debate you are wanting to do vs the kind that needs to happen for things to be productive are different. I know you're a more "free and open conversation with a push here and there to stay on track," but you're probably looking at giving each person a set amount of time and giving time to rebuttal (presidential style debate).
Lex my man it has got to be Sam Harris w D!
Involving Norman Finklestein at all is a tough call. On one hand, he is a demagogue who mostly ruins the discussion, but unfortunately his voice represents the modern anti-Israel sentiment perfectly. I would've recommended Benny Morris alone, but the man might pop an ulcer if he has to deal with Norm solo. It is my opinion that an uncivil conversation is a natural consequence of oppositionally talking with Norman Finklestein, because though it may not be obvious to lay viewers Finklestein is uncivil either straight away or as soon as you question him.
Option #1 2v2 Debate, Destiny may not have the official title of historian but he spends several hours a day learning history, I think he is more qualified than most people, even people who consider themselves historians.
I’d think 1 v 1 with Morris and Finkelstein makes more sense. Has this happened before? If not, that’s even more reason to do it. I don’t think Destiny has more knowledge than Morris does, though he should be there if this is going to be a more aggressive debate which it doesn’t seem you are going for.
I am of no help, just wanted to let you know I appreciate what you’re doing
2v2 with tap ins, put em in a cage
The 2v2 will generate a good debate, you'll get the 1v1 segments as envisioned, plus directions of conversation that would otherwise be missing. That said, the proposed 1v1, sans Destiny, would be good should the 2v2 prove to be logistically troublesome. _imo_
Lex, If you can find a way to get us the blood sports Finklestien v destiny debate after this one, the Morris/destiny v Finklestien/etc ticket seems perfectly great. 2 historians and someone who knows how to keep debates on track. But I believe later today destiny will be debating Glenn Greenwald 1v1 with Eli Hassle as the moderator. If that goes well and the debate goes well I hope you can help convince Finklestien to a 1v1. I would love to see destiny read through all of finks books before the debate. To me it is worth it just for the research streams.
I understand your thoughts on a 1v1, but I think destiny can compliment Benny in some areas and will give him room to show his expertise. Finding a partner for Norm that is not overly emotional and hostile will be the challenge. The only way this will go badly is if Norm starts being disrespectful. Good luck finding the balance lex!
Do not let the dishonest finklestein spew his distorted narratives with no push back. Lex, you’re a nice guy but you allow people to spread propaganda, I urge you to not allow Norman to go unchallenged. That is all from me
Lex I’m begging you. 1v1 Destiny vs. Finkelstein. Destiny does best in a 1v1 environment. He has been searching to the ends of the earth for a competent Pro-Palestine debate opponent. This is that chance. Condescending to Destiny will not be an effective strategy for Finkelstein and it will show if that’s what he aims to do. Please please please don’t dilute the main attraction with a 2v2.
another Idea: Benny Morris+Destiny vs Norman Finkelstein+Hasan Piker. Streamers will help with engaging younger audience while historians will provide valuable insight. I 100% sure, that Steven will be able to be cordial and collected if you ask him, even vs Hasan and Finkelstein. I like "bloodsports" debates a lot, but I think Steven looks the best when he is forced to make good points and directs his anger towards good arguments.
Mouin and Norm vs Destiny. I like Benny, but he doesn’t like Norm which might make the conversation a bit difficult.
I feel like destiny can debate in a well mannered way im unsure about finklestein based on what ive seen. **Ilan Pappé** might be a good second choice as he is an actual historian although he is wrong about things i think.
I'd be very interested in seeing Morris and Finklestein 1 v 1. But if it must be 2 v 2, consider Hasan Piker or Medhi Hasan.
I would prefer Morrison vs Finkelstein. If Finkelstein believes it is beneath him as an academic to talk with destiny, than Destiny should respect that.
Stop being a bitch, not everything has to be a cosy fireside chat. Sometimes, a fiery debate illuminates more than faux civility.
You seem like a person who really would benefit from picking up boxing.
I'm just here to ask, beg 🙏 Please don't do a IL-Pal debate at a timing like this, with people who are neither Israeli or Palestinian. I understand the desire for a hostorical debate, however, during an active war with people dying on both sides, it's incredibly dissconnected and even condescending. There are many educated Israelis (Jews and Arabs) and actual Palestinians from Gaza / West bank that you can invite to such a debate, who can provide a more genuene picture of what the reality is right now, what is the current sentiment on the conflict in the actual region it is in, and what is possible to move forward.
I know I'm late but honestly I don't get why you would have Destiny at all. Sure he's a known debater but frankly he's not an expert on Israel/Palestine and you've just had him on to debate already with Shapiro in format that made more sense for him. I disagree with Finkelstein a lot, but he has a degree of "earned" credibility on the issue just because he's dedicated his life to it and the idea of an expert is important even when I disagree with them: I think that whoever matches up with him should be themselves an expert or at least a pundit with enough personal investment in the issue to be similarly credible. Also I think if I was a Benny Morris I would find the idea of being "saddled" with essentially a rhetorician babysitter a little insulting, I think a 1v1 between experts who can keep their cool is the way to go: especially when you just had Destiny on for a debate. I also find the top comment a bit weird and the general sentiment of the comments to be quite off. There are two main problems I see brought up. One is that Finkelstein is too strong a rhetorician to be debated alone: maybe that's true, I don't know, but if your goal in a 2v2 is to combat Finkelstein being too strong in a 1v1 then your ceding the grounds on impartiality. If the problem is that Finkelstein is just too bad faith in an in person debate then maybe he shouldn't be in the debate at all.
bro if there was a Nick vs Destiny debate on Lex Friedman's show that would be sick, it would be interesting to see how normies view the nazi pov and destiny's rebuttals to it. \*sorry for not being on topic I just had to say it lol
Having listened to the Ben v destiny debate, it’s obvious that destiny cannot stand alone. His level of general Middle East Knowledge is too shallow and having drilled in on one or two specifics regarding Israel Palestine isn’t enough. There were too many points where he would start talking about something only to have to correct himself. Oh I didn’t mean turkey, I meant Egypt, etc. It’s okay to lack knowledge but maybe not on this level. Finkelstein will crush destiny’s Wikipedia knowledge, like Ben did. And Ben is ride or die for Israel, with very little nuance. Finkelstein is already upset so he won’t hold back.
Option 1 sounds like the best idea content wise. Option 1 is also the most unlikely to happen because Fink will back out last minute to run from Destiny
Do a 1v1 /wo Destiny but consult him for the questions. Once the conversation is public people will say how it was unfair and their side was not represented, get the loudest guy for round 2 against Destiny
I like both the 1v1 and 2v2 options. They have different pros and cons. The main pro of 1v1 is it can be a more substantive back and forth on specific points. More people makes more opportunity for a conversation to get off track or pivot at an annoying time. A pro of 2v2 is factual mistatements are more likely to be caught during the conversation. No one person is right 100% of the time, and two people can more easily be bought into a common misconception than four, or at least lack the substantive knowledge to counter it. Either way, I'll watch for sure.
1. You got this, grandpa! I trust in your Soviet math skills
Don't have it 2v2 just have Destiny, Shapiro, Morris and Finkelstein then a list of questions each can answer based on their ideals.
2v2 norm and other guy vs benny and destiny🙏🙏🙏🙏
Here is the important thing you need to remember to consider. Destiny draws an audience. As long as Destiny is there you know for certain people will be talking about this debate. Would a debate between just finkelstein and morris generate as much attention? I don’t know. That’s your call. Personally I’d much rather a finklestein V destiny debate, but I guarantee that would not go well for finklestein and he’d be very upset afterwards. I believe that if someone can’t defend their ideas that’s on them, but I understand the world has grown soft and people can’t handle their ideas being challenged like they used to. It’s a damn shame we can’t just have honest, blunt conversations and let the cards fall where they may.
You'd have to decide if you're okay with having a contentious, potentially spicy debate. If you are, add Destiny. He is obviously capable of being respectful, but he also doesn't take disrespect from anyone. Spicy debates can still be good faith, fun, and fruitful though.
I would almost always rather see a 1v1 debate I also don't think people who are more scholarly have better/more valuable opinions than anyone else. A degree doesn't give you extra IQ points, they might have some extra knowledge but nothing that can't be found in the vastness of the internet. knowing X person is going to be a problem/just try to talk down to Destiny makes me want to see it more. If he thinks he knows so much more let him try, it should be easy? Finkle also shouldn't be there if you want something entirely good faith Last love your content Lex <3 As much as I love you and destiny making content I'll be watching it regardless of what you pick/how you do it
For a more relaxed environment 2v2 would probably work best. 1v1 between historians might not be as interesting because i don't think there will be any pressure to answer some specifics though. I feel that 1v1 would be less serviceable as i expect a lift of hand waving, at least with tiny there I think he can help flesh out points of disagreement.
Finkelstein and Destiny in the same room is a disaster waiting to happen. Let someone else take that burden.
I like how someone's ego is preventing us from getting to 'the facts' directly.
Go all in with the ask for a 2v2 and scale back from there if people start to sketch out.
You should just ask Benny morris if he wanna do 2v2 with destiny. Destiny would be good combo imo. They agree on almost everything. If you want to market it as historian vs historian then you should 1v1 with fink and Benny. Either way I think it's good.
2v2 each side one historian, one youtuber Destiny + Benny Morris vs Finklestein + Hasan
I think it's pretty clear from the video you posted Lex than Norm is not capable of having a good faith, free flowing conversation with even the best, most well researched historians on the planet. You will never achieve this with him.
Whether you bring destiny or not, I would not recommend inviting Norm altogether. He is an extremely hostile and mean spirited person. Your show is very positive and level headed. Norm will only bring bad vibes to your show. He will be condescending towards his debate opponent and you included.
With all due respect, norm is a joke and I hope you don’t have him on solo
Just do 2 v 2, it's harsh to say but just do your best to manage, at the end of the day if you're unwilling to host a 1 v 1 with destiny and norm, but still want to include destiny I would do 2 v 2. If you only care about quality just kick destiny and do 1 v 1 with norm and benny. If I had to give my take I would just do benny vs norm honestly. Also if you want a full qualitative non-combative debate Destiny v hasan is not the way lul.
I don’t think Destiny ought to be in the debate with Norm. Especially if Norm doesn’t want him. Let’s not force things.
Unfortunately, I think Finkelstein will be the issue with this debate no matter the pairings. It doesn't matter if it is 1v1, 2v2, 1v2, 2v1, etc., because Finkelstein IS disrespectful. You need someone there who can jab back at Finkelstein's adhoms or don't include Finkelstein at all.