Adam Green vs. Aarvoll: Debate Review

Christianity debate.

Let’s skip straight to who won and lost:

Adam won on framing the issue as a black-and-white binary. Aarvoll won in making a positivistic, constructivist argument for the importance of mythology. Adam gained the respect of much of the audience for making a very simple (perhaps over-simplistic) and brutally forceful case, while Aarvoll gained from that portion of the audience who are subtle, more philosophically thinkers. Both participants benefited.

There was, however, a big loser in this debate, and that was orthodox Christianity.

Adam’s Strength

Adam’s purpose in this debate was to maintain and control the frame. The frame was that the Bible is not true, that it is contrived, that it is mythology, and that it was invented by Jews. Aarvoll conceded that the Bible contains parts which are false or demonic in nature, that some parts of it may be allegorical or made up, and that it was, to a degree, influenced by Jews.

Adam was almost supernaturally skilled at quote mining the Bible. Aarvoll even complimented him on this, saying something like, “you seem to be more Christian than I am!,” in reference to Adam’s almost encyclopedic knowledge of Bible quotes. Adam obviously came well prepared and has engaged in many of these debates previously, and had clearly researched this topic to the utmost extent.

Adam’s Weakness

Adam’s debate tactics are familiar to anyone who has engaged in highschool or college level debate clubs. In these competitive events, the goal is to marshal as many facts and evidence as possible within the allotted time. This is not to say that Adam’s delivery was overly speedy or too condensed, but it is to say that Adam’s style was like a machine gun, constantly spitting out relevant quotes and facts for any topic.

When Adam was confronted with the arguments of his opponent, he would almost reactively and instantly respond, “that’s not true. That’s fake. That’s false.” This was an effective debating tactic for anyone who was already on Adam’s side, in that it made him appear confident and sure of himself. However, for anyone who was looking for a deeper explanation of why it was true or not, and was maybe more interested in spirituality or metaphysics, these dismissals were not intellectually stimulating.

Furthermore, there were a number of points which Aarvoll brought up, where Adam simply said, “I don’t know, maybe.” Adam was unable to engage intellectually with Aarvoll beyond a certain surface level.. This was not entirely a weakness, since it allowed Adam to keep the debate confined to his predetermined frame, sticking to “just the historical facts,” “just the text” and so on.

Aarvoll’s Strength

Aarvoll, in the first place, was praised by much of the audience for his physiognomy. Whereas Adam appeared a bit wired, as if he had a few cups of coffee or a vape, Aarvoll appeared relaxed, sincere, and intellectually curious. Aarvoll understood that Adam’s purpose was to attack orthodox Christianity. Instead of playing this game, Aarvoll attempted to concede a number of points, and suggest that a heterodox perennialist interpretation of Christianity was the correct position.

Adam was not able to engage with the concept of mythology. Every time Aarvoll brought up the power of myth, Adam was not able to respond. Adam claimed that people could live without myths, or that ethnicity in itself was enough to give people everything they needed to live. When Aarvoll pressed him on this, Adam claimed that since some individuals are atheists, and they seem to do ok, that myth wasn’t necessary. Anyone who was paying attention could see that Aarvoll’s line of attack completely sidestepped Adam’s pedantic attacks on the text of the Bible, and he was unable to engage in reasoned arguments from first principles. It made Adam appear shallow and superficial.

Aarvoll also attacked Adam’s belief that Christianity was created as a Jewish conspiracy to subvert Rome. Adam’s argument comes from Nietzsche, but instead of Adam referencing Nietzsche to bolster his claims, he did not display any intellectual or historical depth regarding this argument. This is possibly because Adam was afraid that if the debate became too philosophical rather than textual or analytical, Aarvoll would win.

Aarvoll’s Weakness

Many Christians going into this debate may have assumed that Aarvoll would defend the Bible and orthodox Christianity. Instead, Aarvoll defended the position that the Bible was corrupted, and that Jesus was God independent of the violence or cruelty inherent in the Bible. Aarvoll argued from a perennialist position, defending the idea that Jesus could possibly be an avatar of Vishnu.

While Adam was drawing from a large contingent of Keith’s audience who are anti-Christian, who were cheering him on, Keith’s audience does not contain a large Hindu or perennialist contingent who were there to cheer on Aarvoll. Instead, the debate attracted a large number of orthodox Christians, who were disappointed that Aarvoll called parts of the Bible satanic or demonic. While Adam successfully won over the anti-Christians in the audience, Aarvoll was not able to appeal to the large contingent of orthodox Christians, who viewed him as just as bad as Adam for denying the infallibility of the Bible.

By the end of the debate, Aarvoll appeared frustrated or bored. This is understandable: debating for more than two hours, especially against an opponent who is laser-focused and determined to control the frame, can be exhausting. Emotionally, however, this may have been interpreted by the audience as a sign of defeat.

The Mormon Argument

One of the points of debate between Adam and Aarvoll was the “Mormon argument.” Aarvoll asked Adam, “if Christianity is not true, why was it so successful?” Adam responded, “Mormonism has also been successful. Does that mean it is true?”

Aarvoll’s response was to say, in a very subtle way (perhaps too subtle for the audience), that Joseph Smith was channeling very powerful Jungian archetypes when he invented Mormonism, and that therefore, the extent to which Mormonism was successful was the extent to which it was true. Because Aarvoll was not able to state this point in a simplified fashion, Adam was basically able to ignore this argument and say, “I don’t know” and move on to something more cut-and-dry.

Conclusion

To give an MMA metaphor: Adam wanted to box. He has good jabs, a good right hook, and a great stance. He delivers quick punches and has good stamina. During the debate, he never seemed disinterested or tired, but always focused. Aarvoll wanted to go to the ground. He wanted to bring Adam down to the fundamental questions of the existence of God and the psychology of mythology. Adam refused to do this, and resisted Aarvoll’s “takedown” attempts.

Both opponents in this debate both agreed that the Bible contains many passages which are morally indefensible and deserve condemnation. For many Christians, this amounts to a rejection of the entire Christian religion. Traditional Catholics would not come away from this debate sympathetic to either side. The majority of Christians, especially those on the right, do not like the idea of “cherry picking” the Bible, deciding which passages are good and which are bad.

Even within single books of the Bible, Aarvoll claimed that some of the psalms were divinely inspired, while others were demonic. He further claimed that the psalms were probably not even written by David. Both Adam and Aarvoll agreed that the church was wrong to persecute pagan philosophers and to destroy pagan statues.

If Adam and Aarvoll are representative of the future of the right wing in America, then orthodox Christian and traditional Catholicism are both doomed. However, as Keith mentioned during the debate, the popularity of a religion is not determined by intellectual debate or philosophical inquiry: sometimes religious spread because dumb people have more children. Given that fact, it is likely that the American right will neither turn toward Adam’s “flattened” Nietzcheanism, nor Aarvoll’s heterodox Christianity, but rather will continue to be dominated, in general, by institutional, orthodox Christianity.

There exists a split between the intellectuals of the right, who are increasingly hostile or heterodox in their concept of Christianity, and the masses of the right, who tend toward Qanon or orthodoxy. While Adam and Aarvoll certainly do not represent the average Trump voter, they do fairly represent the diversity of the intellectual right. While mainline Christianity is likely to continue to dominate the Republican party (and other conservative institutions, such as Supreme Court selection), it seems unlikely that it will survive among intellectual idealists.

Just as traditional support for Israel is rapidly declining among young people, so too is traditional support for orthodox Christianity. Although mainline Christians still make up a majority of the American right today, this may no longer be the case for the next generation. Such debates, although seemingly pedantic, philosophical, or idealistic, have practical implications for the future. Just as the theoretical debates between Marx and Engels in the 19th century found their material expression in the 20th century, it is possible that debates such as these will find their actual expression of power in the coming century.