I choose to believe (maybe for my own ego) that they are afraid to debate me, given my status as a former AnCap, and the fact they really don't have a good retort to my arguments against the pathological cases around self-ownership and NAP, so they just wave their hands, say these pathological cases are "unlikely" or "absurd" and then proceed to ignore me.

It's interesting to me that their only response to my arguments is to make an argument from *likelihood*, as if this is an intellectually defensible position. It's no more of an interesting argument than me responding to an AnCap, dismissing all their arguments and saying "well, anarcho-capitalism is highly unlikely, and you can't see that, it's not worth my time talking to you."

That's literally how they're responding to me, while somehow believing they've taken the intellectual high ground. 🤣