Personal thoughts: Is it even possible to debate demagoguery?

Demagoguery (official definition): political activity or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument

Demagoguery (Germaine definition): any political, religious, commercial or other activity or practices that seek support by playing on and/or appealing to the ignorance, desires and/or prejudices of people rather than by using rational argument; demagoguery usually relies significantly or mostly on lies, slanders, irrational emotional manipulation, flawed motivated reasoning, logic fallacies, etc.; relevant inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning are usually ignored, denied or distorted into an appearance of false insignificance or false irrelevance

Way back in 2014, when cowboys with six shooters were duking it out against cattle rustling T. rex lizards, Bill Nye the science guy publicly debated young Earth believer Tom Ham, a crackpot Christian nationalist. He is a demagogue by Germaine's definition. Ham, the founder and chief executive officer of Young Earth creationist ministry and Answers in Genesis, challenged Nye to debate the question "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?" The debate was held at Ham's "Creation Museum" in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Before the debate, Team R&R (reality and reason) urged Nye not to debate because there was nothing to debate. Many in the scientific community criticized Nye's decision to debate, arguing that it lent undue credibility to the creationist worldview. Ham argued crackpottery like cowboys duking it out with dinosaurs in the wild, wild West. Obviously, Team R&R had a point. But Nye debated anyway. As expected, things ended just as they started. Minds did not change. But, Ham did get some publicity for his "museum" and probably made some extra money.

Rock solid proof that cowboys and 

dinosaurs co-existed in the 1800s

Over the years, it slowly dawned that, like the Nye-Ham nonsense, debating demagoguery is pointless, but probably unavoidable in most situations. Such debates are arguably more harmful than beneficial as Team R&R argued. But, maybe not as harmful as not engaging with demagoguery at all. There is nothing to debate when demagogues deny or distort important facts, resort to flawed reasoning and so forth. But they are there, influencing public opinion, well funded, and not going away.

Much (most?) of the harm arises from false balancing (false equivalence, bothsidesism). By simply debating with a demagogue, the demagogue's false assertions (lies), flawed reasoning and whatnot are treated with seriousness and respect they do not deserve. In the hands of a skilled demagogue, false balancing can feel or seem like rational thinking, especially when it appeals to prejudices, comforting false beliefs and the like. 

We easily mistake psychological comfort for rationality, i.e., nonsense has to be rational because it feels so right. But when relevant facts and the reasoning applied to them heavily favor one side and heavily undermines the other, a basis for rationality just isn't there. But the basis for false belief is still there, i.e., people still want to feel good about themselves and their beliefs, even when there is no basis for it. That never goes away. That is the demagogue's target.

The problem is that by ignoring the demagogue and not trying to counter the lies and nonsense, Team R&R leaves the public opinion playing field uncontested for the demagogues to slime all over. Demagoguery is rampant in major issues including climate change, climate regulations, gun regulations, the scope and meaning of the Constitution, civil liberties, and abortion. 

Slimed by demagoguery &

the ground gets slippery

I suppose little or none of this is new to most folks here at Dissident Politics. It's all come up multiple times. Guess it doesn't hurt to repeat some things.