Now I had exactly zero interest in the Royal Wedding. I am quite happy for others

[Monty92]

But the nub of the matter is that one side insists things that are empirically false are 'emotionally true' and the other refuses to accept those things. I've never heard an argument with those premises that ends in anything other than frustrated, furious deadlock.

Exactly. But with the right format, the credibility of these claims can be effectively interrogated and exposed. Someone who insists, for example, that there is no objective reality and the validity of the 'lived experience' should always be given primacy can easily coast through your average 2-hour debate in which the moderator's main job is to ensure the panel doesn't get stuck on specific points of disagreement and to keep things flowing...

But actually it is that final demand that ruins such debates.

Take the first podcast between Sam Harris and Peterson. They were intending to discuss many issues but from the very outset got stuck on their respective beliefs on the right definition of the word 'truth'. They ended up discussing this single point for three hours!!!

It was of course faintly ridiculous, but sometimes that's what you need...