I am referring only to the style of this debate. Saif often finds himself at a low point, as he seems to ignore or misunderstand the repeated points and resorts to unfounded ad hominem attacks. In the section on 'identity bias,' he appears completely lost. In contrast, Konstantin behaves like an adult, remaining focused and composed under pressure.
Discussion
it was hard to watch but respect for Saif and can appreciate its a lot emotionally closer to him than the other guy.
The moral of the story for me was, having opinions on shit you know nothing about is a loosing strategy.
When you consider that Konstantin is advocating for the continued genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, I can understand Saif struggling to keep his cool.
I think the whole point is that Konstantin is not advocating for any type of genocide, which he has repeated several times. Saif either fails to acknowledge this or refuses to do so because he can hardly contain his own emotions and biases.
I think because Saif has heard Konstantin in other venues and has seen how dishonest of a broker he is. His actions bely his protestations that he is not pro-genocide.
The debate he moderated with Brianna Joy Gray and Eli Lake was especially revealing: https://youtu.be/_M15lTZ41dM?si=prBKnHdbDrfOAbwK
Saif is in a difficult position of calling bullshit on someone who feigns objective impartiality but who is really a propagandist with an agenda.
I respectfully disagree. I have found no proof of Konstantin's dishonesty. He has opinions with which I may agree or disagree, but that is a different matter. I refuse to take intellectual shortcuts because they lead exactly to the position in which Saif found himself during that debate.