“Even when he touches on an issue that is a valid complaint, his take is so bombastic and over-the-top that he loses whatever intellectual high ground he has.”
This one sentence is honestly why I don’t really like Adam’s style much at all. He always has a point in some way, but frames it in such absolutes that they don’t have ground to stand on.
You complain about Conover's takes being "misleading or flat-out wrong," but then don't even bother pointing out what they are or coming up with a rebuttal. Your main pushback seems to be, "I don't agree with anything you say, Adam, and it's just too much to go over. Instead, let's debate!" Why would he, when you can't come up with one logical rebuttal in the first place?
“Even when he touches on an issue that is a valid complaint, his take is so bombastic and over-the-top that he loses whatever intellectual high ground he has.”
This one sentence is honestly why I don’t really like Adam’s style much at all. He always has a point in some way, but frames it in such absolutes that they don’t have ground to stand on.
You complain about Conover's takes being "misleading or flat-out wrong," but then don't even bother pointing out what they are or coming up with a rebuttal. Your main pushback seems to be, "I don't agree with anything you say, Adam, and it's just too much to go over. Instead, let's debate!" Why would he, when you can't come up with one logical rebuttal in the first place?