He's a smart guy but I don't think he could really hold his own in a debate with a skilled opponent because he doesn't have experience. If he wants to do political commentary he needs to debate his opposition. I don't want to hear vague talking points, I want specific examples and I want him to be able to back them up confidently.
Ah geez, so after throwing mud at me you actually agree with one of the key points I've raised on here.
I've been watching, and for the most part enjoying, Sam and MDE's stuff for 10 years now - but largely from the viewpoint of comedy. As Sam in recent years tries to pivot towards genuine political commentator and guru (while being less funny), then naturally there will also be more of a shift towards challenging his politics (as put forward in both his words and actions).
And the problem is that there are indeed some fundamental flaws and hypocrisies in Sam's words as espoused on his show and podcasts he appears on. As I pointed out initially, when some of these inconsistencies are finally raised to him, as by Mayhem, Sam has no response and resorts to toddler-level, fingers in the ears "I don't care".
Likewise, when I highlight on here the kind of discussion points which might be used by anyone debating Sam, those of Sam's fans wishing to defend them also eventually resort to primitive name-calling and evasion.
When on his own Sam Hyde Show, he can throw around wildly inaccurate statements such as "most of our taxes go to Israel" without being challenged by Bebop and Rocksteady sitting on the side. If someone like Douglas Murray would ever do Sam the undeserved courtesy of trying to engage him in a genuine debate, then likewise I doubt Sam would last 10 minutes before frustratedly getting the urge to just lazily throw a slur. As yet there is little from either he or his lap-dogs which suggest he's capable of more.
