> It is incredibly easy to defeat white supremacy in a debate.
If that were the case there wouldn't be that many white supremacist to be a problem.
It's easy to "defeat" them in the sense "Expose their logical fallacy so that most reasonable people can see it". Unfortunately, it doesn't do shit. So, in a sense, debating a white supremacist (and winning logically) is a pyrrhic victory, something that gives satisfaction to the practitioners but unlikely to make any difference in the society, at least not the kind you'd usually expect from "winning a debate".
If that were the case there wouldn't be that many white supremacist to be a problem.
It's easy to "defeat" them in the sense "Expose their logical fallacy so that most reasonable people can see it". Unfortunately, it doesn't do shit. So, in a sense, debating a white supremacist (and winning logically) is a pyrrhic victory, something that gives satisfaction to the practitioners but unlikely to make any difference in the society, at least not the kind you'd usually expect from "winning a debate".