TheAcademicAgent can't reason, and ThePeoplesRhino can't read

When TheAcademicAgent directly contradicted himself on twitter, and Jack pointed out the contradiction, ThePeoplesRhino denied it (here):

When screenshots were adduced to juxtopose TAA's incoherent pronouncements, ThePeoplesRhino again denied the contradiction (here):

To justify his denial of the contradiction, ThePeoplesRhino appealed to his poor memory, and blamed Jack for posing tricky questions (here):

Then, as the content of the screenshots was reiterated, ThePeoplesRhino claimed that they had been decontextualised in order to misrepresent TAA (here and here):

In short, ThePeoplesRhino appears to be struggling to comprehend a basic contradiction committed by TAA on twitter—so I'm here to help him out. In order to make myself legible to ThePeoplesRhino, I have attempted to write this post very simply and repetatively, so that even a child could understand it.

Step 1: TAA claims that the LTV is unfalsifiable

First, Jack asked TAA (here): "What exactly do you think the prediction of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is?"

Then, in direct response to this (i.e., in reference to the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall), TAA declared (here): "It's just a BS non-falsifiable prediction."

When Garl Margs (here) noted that this tweet conflicts with TAA's attempts elsewhere to falsify the prediction, TAA responded to this (i.e., still in reference to the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall) by reiterating (here): "It's unfalsifiable because no limit is named. He can just say "oh it'll happen in 200 years". They don't make a specific testifiable claim."

Here is the full exchange, unedited:

In short, TAA has clearly stated here that the LTV's prediction (the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall) is unfalsifiable. By now, this should be completely unambiguous - even ThePeoplesRhino should be able to understand what TAA is saying here (provided that the former understands basic English).

Step 2: TAA claims that the LTV is false

TAA also claimed that the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall is false, i.e., empirically falsified by evidence which he adduced. Here is the context:

First, Jack tweeted (here): "What exactly do you think the prediction of the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is?"

Then, AA (here) directly responded to that tweet (i.e., in reference to the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall) by declaring: "1. It's not a law. 2. It's just a BS non-falsifiable prediction. 3. Increased automization will cause profits to decline over time."

Then, in direct response to that tweet (i.e., still in reference to the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall), TAA added the following further comment (here): "Is easily disproven if one considers the profits generated by an algorithim at a high-tech trading firm."

Here is the full exchange, unedited:

TAA clearly states that the LTV's prediction (i.e., the prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall) is "easily disproven," which is another way of saying false. (Once again, I can only pray that my words can somehow get through to ThePeoplesRhino, and that he understands what TAA is saying here.)

Step 3: Unfalsifiable vs. False

An unfalsifiable hypothesis is one which is consistent with all possible evidence, i.e., nothing can falsify it; the flipside of unfalsifiability is unverifiability, since the hypothesis doesn't generate predictions for specific evidences which can be empirically confirmed or disconfirmed.

By contrast, a false hypothesis is necessarily one that is falsifiable, i.e., generates predictions for specific evidences that can be confirmed or disconfirmed; in the case of a false hypothesis, the latter has occurred (i.e., the predictions have been disconfirmed).

Hence, calling a hypothesis both 'false' and 'unfalsifiable' is incoherent.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's revisit TAA's aforementioned tweets:

As we can clearly see here, TAA claimed that the LTV's prediction of the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall is unfalsifiable, and then, IN THE VERY NEXT TWEET, claimed that the prediction has been falsified.

Clearly, TAA is contradicting himself. May God grant ThePeoplesRhino language-comprehension abilities, such that he is able to understand TAA's predicament here.


Conclusion

By now, it should be clear that TAA directly contradicted himself, by claiming that the LTV is both false and unfalsifiable.

If God is gracious, then perhaps ThePeoplesRhino will finally begin to comprehend TAA's extremely obvious contradiction. If he does, we must extend kindness to his poor benighted soul: no doubt ThePeoplesRhino will try to ameliorate his blinding idiocy by retrospectively recasting it as nothing more than "lol XD random trolling"—no doubt he will attempt to claim that he merely adopted the persona of a complete dipshit, for the lolz.

In these matters, we must be forgiving.

TheAcademicAgent is “emphatically wrong”

Recently, the reactionary youtuber and tweeter TheAcademicAgent made the grievous mistake of attempting to debate the autodidactic Marxist, cinephile, and cyclist Jack Angstreich on the Labour Theory of Value. Needless to say, AA consistently failed to demonstrate that the LTV is incoherent, or invalid in terms of inferences, or unsound in terms of premises, or false in terms of predictions, or unfalsifiable, or ad hoc. Instead, it seemed as though AA had very little understanding of the subject, in stark juxtaposition to the confidence of his assertions. (For an introduction to the LTV, go here.)

The debate itself is well worth a watch, but my interest here is to chronicle the context and fallout surrounding the event, with special reference to AA’s reaction and commentary. This material can be divided into seven themes—three devoted to AA’s fallacies and falsehoods, three devoted to his arrogance and hypocrisy, and one devoted to humorous responses by onlookers:

1. AA doesn’t understand definitions
2. AA rejects the scientific method
3. AA lies about the debate
4. AA’s excuses
5. AA’s hubris
6. AA’s cowardice
7. Funny reactions to the debate

Throughout this catalogue, two consistent patterns will emerge: firstly, it will become apparent that AA knows little-to-nothing about science and the scientific method, despite his self-proclaimed “academic” laurels; and secondly, most of AA’s retrospective claims about the debate were already refuted during the debate—often multiple times.

§ 1: AA doesn’t understand definitions

As Jack explained during the debate, the LTV uses the term ‘value’ to describe the socially-necessary unskilled labour-time required to reproduce a given commodity, which is posited as the explanation for the equilibrium-price of commodities. Rather than ‘value’, we could say “X” or some other term—so long as the term is clearly defined as referring to the concept in question, the theory can be understood and evaluated. Like all words, ‘value’ can mean one thing (e.g., “the socially-necessary unskilled labour-time required to reproduce a given commodity”) in one context (e.g., the LTV), and something else in another.

Unfortunately, AA continually equivocated on ‘value’ during the debate, by rejecting ‘value’ as defined within the LTV and substituting it for another concept: ‘subjective value,’ i.e., the market-price of a commodity. In doing so, AA failed to understand and engage with the theory; this would be akin to substituting ‘fitness’ as understood in Darwin’s theory of evolution with ‘fitness’ as understood within the health sciences, and then criticising Darwin for misusing or misunderstanding the term. This equivocation was repeatedly identified by Jack during the debate (again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again), but still, AA persisted…

In the aftermath of the debate, AA doubled-down on his equivocation on twitter and youtube—for example, by citing a Steven Horowitz article which also equivocates on ‘value’ in an attempt to criticise the LTV. But AA himself went even further by claiming that his neoclassical definition of ‘subjective value’ is correct, ergo, the LTV’s definition of value is incorrect—even though the respective concepts aren’t mutually exclusive (as Jack noted during the debate, again and again and again):

In short, AA is trying to suggest that there is a ‘fact of the matter’ as to correct definitions, irrespective of context or intention. In addition to begging the question (how does one establish an objective definition?), AA’s claim can simply be inverted: one could just as glibly assert that the LTV’s usage of value is the correct definition, and thus, that his subjective-theory usage is wrong. Clearly, this is meaningless: words just mean what we say they do, and as long as the LTV clearly defines its usage of value, the concept in question should be comprehendible—regardless of whether ‘value’ is used to refer to other concepts in other contexts.

And yet, AA dug himself even deeper into his equivocation, by conflating the accepting of a definition with the accepting of a premise. This is of course silly: for example, one could accept the definition of ‘unicorn’ (a magical horse with a horn) without necessarily accepting the premise that unicorns exist—the defining of a concept is obviously distinct from the empirical substantiation of the existence of a concept. (Indeed, these two distinct steps were manifest during the debate, where Jack first defined ‘value’ and then posited it as a falsifiable explanation for equilibrium-prices.) Nevertheless, AA repeatedly confused the two, and further assumed—without any argument, and merely via appeal to his ongoing equivocation—that the LTV’s concept of value does not exist:

This conflation of definitions with premises continued in AA’s final response-video to the whole affair, in which he again attempted to excuse his equivocation on ‘value’—his refusal to engage with the concept of ‘value’ in the LTV—by appealing to an analogy about Ptolemy and geocentricism; AA likened accepting the LTV’s definition of ‘value’ to accepting false geocentric premises in a debate against geocentricism.

If that weren’t enough, AA even went so far as to project his own fallacy onto his opponents, by claiming that they had equivocated instead. Thus, in his final response-video, AA claimed that Jack did a “gypsy switch” during the debate with his definition of ‘value’ (even though Jack actually used ‘value’ in a clearly defined manner for a specified context). This claim was also repeated in youtube-comments:

Irony abounds.

But in the end, AA become so confused that he shot himself in the foot. In his final response-video, AA attempts to refute the criticism that he equivocated on ‘value’ (and even correctly summarises his equivocation, e.g., he was merely talking past Jack, “apples and oranges,” etc.); but in the end, he rejects this criticism (i.e., he defends his equivocation) because…

I’m afraid that’s not true, because… uh… the Labour Theory of Value… for Marx’s predictions… for Marx’s, uh, critique of capitalism to be worth anything, it has to work in the real world—it has to predict the… uh… falling rate of… uh… profit.

In other words: AA claims that the LTV’s definition of value should be rejected because the LTV doesn’t predict the falling rate of profit. In addition to being a rambling, confused non-sequitur (how does any of that justify his refusal to understand ‘value’ as defined within the LTV?), this bizarre rationale for rejecting the LTV’s usage of ‘value’ backfires: the LTV does in fact predict the falling rate of profit (as Jack noted DURING the debate, here and here). Hence, by AA’s own criterion, he should accept ‘value’ as defined within the LTV.

§ 2: AA rejects the scientific method

In effort to save face, AA has attempted to retrospectively distort the events of the debate by recasting Jack as some kind of religious dogmatic, and recasting himself as not an idiot. Jack is described as “a Marxist ideologue priest” (here), and his definition of value likened to a false creationist presupposition (here):

It’s like arguing with a creationist using Intelligent Design as the starting-point of the argument, and me saying, ‘Well, look, Intelligent Design isn’t right, it’s not the right starting-point, because that’s not the nature of nature. You know, evolution is the thing that explains nature, not intelligent design,’ and him saying, ‘Yes but in order to refute my theory you have to start with intelligent design!’ So really, Jack wanted to have a theological argument, basically straightjacketed in the terms of Marx’s theoretical prison; and all I wanted to do is point out that the reality of the situation is that value doesn’t work like that—empirical reality doesn’t work like that. So, the whole exercise was kind of fruitless, because I was trying to talk about economics, and he was trying to have this conversation about what is essentially theology.

Numerous iterations of this sentiment were repeated by AA in comments across twitter and youtube, as he attempted to rewrite history by portraying Jack as an anti-scientific “priest,” Das Kapital as “the Bible,” and the LTV as “theology,” etc.

In successive retellings of this narrative, AA began to employ increasingly flamboyant analogies: the LTV isn’t merely theology, but high theology:

  

Alternatively, the LTV isn’t merely “theology,” but also “moral philosophy” and possibly liberation-theology:

Alternatively, the LTV is like creationism, and Marxists are like creationists:

Alternatively, Marxists are like “flat earthers”:

Alternatively, the LTV is “Marxist mumbo jumbo magic”:

Alternatively, Jack is a “priest,” Das Kapital is “chapter and verse theology” and the LTV is “shamanism”:

And so on.

By equating the LTV to religion, etc., AA attempts to suggest that—mutatis mutandis—the LTV is similarly wrong. However, these analogies presuppose that the LTV (like religion, etc.) has been shown to be incoherent, or invalid in terms of inferences, or unsound in terms of premises, or false in terms of predictions, or unfalsifiable, or ad hoc—which is precisely what AA has thus far failed to demonstrate. He is putting the cart before the horse.

The irony here is that Jack was the one who repeatedly advocated the scientific method as the means to evaluate the LTV, adducing specific criteria on several occasions (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Indeed, AA’s attempt to equate Jack to a theologian was already refuted during the debate, when Jack once again reiterated his scientific approach to the LTV (here). Meanwhile, AA generally came across as scientifically illiterate, and did little more than vaguely appeal to “the real world” in lieu of actual arguments; at one point, he even declared (in relation to the LTV): “I literally couldn’t give a shit about what it predicts and what it doesn’t predict.” This is especially ironic given AA’s subsequent claim that Jack “doesn’t really care about evidence.” AA’s scientific illiteracy also manifested when he claimed that the LTV “is a completely ad hoc theory,” and then claimed two minutes later that the LTV is false because “none” of its predictions came true—this is a direct contradiction, since an ad hoc theory in science is one which makes correct predictions, but merely explains what it was designed to explain. By definition, an ad hoc theory is not false per se, and conversely, a falsified theory cannot be ad hoc—AA doesn’t seem to understand what ad hoc means in a scientific context, as Jack noted during the debate. Indeed, AA doesn’t seem to recognise the established criteria for evaluating scientific theories in general; thus, when Jack once again outlined these criteria vis-à-vis the LTV, AA cut him off and declared: “I’m not having this debate on your terms!” Perhaps they don’t teach concepts such as ‘falsifiability’ and ‘coherence’ within the discipline of English Literature—either way, AA dismissed the scientific method.

In short: contrary to his attempted revisionism, it was AA who came across as the anti-scientific ideologue, whereas Jack came across as an advocate for a falsifiable scientific theory—a fact noted by several commentators.

“BTFO,” as some would say.

  

§ 3: AA lies about the debate

In addition to recasting Jack as a religious dogmatic, AA has also asserted victory in retrospect in regards to certain empirical questions—for example, claiming in final response-video that Jack was “forced” to concede to the ‘subjective value’ theory during the debate, regarding the issue of the baker’s oven. Similar claims were made on twitter and youtube:

AA hasn’t yet been able to provide timestamps for these alleged instances of concession, but other such claims are perhaps verifiable—for example:

This is an odd claim, given that Jack repeatedly explained the way in which one would calculate the socially-necessary unskilled labour-time required to produce a pencil (here, here, here, and here). Perhaps AA has some other pencil-related incident from the debate in mind…

In his final response-video, AA also claimed that Jack “hand-waved” the LTV’s inability to explain things like art, and made a similar claim regarding monopoly goods:

AA’s claim is curious given that Jack repeatedly refuted this criticism during the debate (here, here, here, here, here, here, and here): the LTV was only intended to explain “a restricted set of goods that are available on the market,” which is to say, “freely-reproducible goods,” rather than things such as art, services, insurance premiums, and so on. Hence, criticising the LTV for not explaining non-freely-reproducible goods is akin to criticising the Theory of Evolution for not explaining gravity.

AA also seems to suggest that ‘equilibrium-prices’ and/or ‘value’ (in the Marxist sense) don’t exist in “reality” or “the real world,” and hence, that the LTV is somehow falsified:

This is again odd, since Jack explicitly clarified during the debate that value and equilibrium-prices “are part of reality”—once again, AA’s retrospective claims are redundant. (Additionally, it would be absurd to suggest that because ‘value’ and/or ‘equilibrium-prices’ don’t exist, that therefore, the definitions are “wrong”—is the definition of a unicorn “wrong” because unicorns don’t exist? AA continues to stumble from one absurdity to another…)

Other than these specific revisions, AA also makes generic claims about how Marx and the LTV were somehow erroneous:

But once again, AA is putting the cart before the horse: a demonstration of the falsity of the LTV was precisely his task during the debate, and after failing at that task, he is merely reasserting an unsubstantiated claim.

All of this is particularly ironic given AA’s rhetoric in an old video, in which he criticises people for doing exactly what he’s done here—declaring victory without warrant:

Funnily enough, I was reading a book the other day called Straight & Crooked Thinking—it’s about dirty tricks in arguments, and how people often claim victory when they’ve done little if anything to disprove their opponent.

In the same video, AA further claims that his then-opponent engaged in “anti-intellectual cherry-picking,” and that such tactics will only be convincing to “the communist lunatics in his comments, delighting in a spot of confirmation-bias and unfounded self-congratulation.” This is projection of the highest order, given that AA has exactly described his own situation here: he has claimed victory despite doing little if anything to disprove his opponent, and only his biased followers are convinced by his revisionism on the matter. In short, AA is both a revisionist and a hypocrite, and his retrospective claims about the debate are either unsubstantiated or false.

§ 4: AA’s excuses

During the debate, AA claimed to have read all three volumes of Das Kapital, and in the comments-section of the live-stream, he further claimed to have read “all” of Marx’s works in general: 

If that weren’t enough, AA further claimed to have “written books on Marxist theory,” in a desperate attempt to lend credibility to his various unsubstantiated assertions about the LTV:

Regrettably, AA has yet to divulge the titles of his alleged monographs, and due to privacy-concerns, never will:

How convenient.

In any case, AA doubled-down on his claim to have read “all” of Marx in numerous youtube-comments after the debate, and even claimed to have read some of Hagel as well:

By making these claims, AA was evidently attempting to furnish his credentials as a critic of Marxism, and hence, to lend authority to his rejection of the LTV. The important point here is AA’s attempt to claim knowledge or even expertise on the subject, which is expressed even more directly in the following comment:

In short, AA would have us believe that he’s read all of Marx (and even some Hegel), and that he understands the LTV, and thus, that his rejection of the theory is born from a position of knowledge. Given these self-awarded laurels, AA’s bewilderment concerning the fundamental purpose of the LTV is difficult to explain, as in the following exchange:

Jack: “How many times have we gone over the fact that the Labour Theory of Value is not a theory of market-prices?”

AA: “So what does it explain?! What does it explain?!”

Jack: “It explains equilibrium-prices.”

Another dramatic illustration of AA’s surprising ignorance regarding the basics of the LTV occurred after AA claimed to have read all three volumes of Das Kapital, whereupon Jack demanded: “Tell what c., v., and s. stand for, if you’ve read all three volumes of Capital—what do those initials mean in the Labour Theory of Value?” In response to this scrutiny, AA sheepishly admitted: “I can’t bloody remember off the top of my head.” AA deeply resented this interrogation and humiliation, and after the debate, he bitterly characterised it as a cheap, rhetorical, “gotcha” trick:

AA also attempts to account for his astounding ignorance of the LTV (and c., v., and s. in particular) in his final response-video, where he claims that he read Marx many years ago, and hence, can’t be expected to have memorised every little detail. AA thus tries to characterise c., v., and s. as unnecessary trivia known only to fanatics who “live and breathe Marx every single day,” thereby minimising the significance of his ignorance.

The problem with this narrative is that c., v., and s. aren’t irrelevant minutæ from an obscure passage in Das Kapital—in fact, they arguably constitute the central formula of the LTV, given that constant capital + variable capital + surplus value = VALUE. Claiming to have read Marx and understood the LTV without knowing c., v., and s. is like claiming to have read and understood Harry Potter without knowing who Voldemort is. In other words, AA claims to have read all of Marx and comprehended the LTV, yet doesn’t even seem to know the basics of the theory. Many commentators were quick to point out this blatant discrepancy, and to disregard AA’s flimsy excuses:

AA’s attempts to excuse his ignorance ultimately resulted in some rather strange contortions, as he tried to explain how he came to a debate about the LTV to debate the LTV, not the LTV…

In sum, AA claims to have read all of Marx’s works, to have written books on Marxist theory, and to have understood the LTV—yet somehow remains ignorant of the most basic elements of the very theory which he is supposed to be contending, and which he blithely dismissed as “emphatically wrong.”

§ 5: AA’s hubris

Several days after the debate, AA opined the following on twitter:

Putting aside the irony of someone boasting about their humility, it’s interesting to keep such rhetoric in mind when considering AA’s attitude toward the debate. With the benefit of hindsight, a glaring discrepancy can be discerned between the confidence of AA’s assertions and his ignorance on the subject-matter—or as one commentator put it: “Judging by his recent debate, I think AcademicAgent might be the worst example of the Dunning Kruger effect I’ve ever seen.” If conservatives are indeed humble, then we can only conclude that AA is not a conservative.

Prior to the debate, AA seemed quite upbeat: his online reactionary echo-chamber had instilled him with a false sense of acumen and knowledge, and in general, he fancied himself to be a scholar and a gentleman. It was in high spirits that AA posted the following tweet, in which he likens himself to Rocky—calculated to convey an air of confidence and nonchalance:

Blinded by hubris, AA happily tweeted the link to the live debate as it commenced—blissfully unaware of what awaited him:

After the debate, as AA limped back to his reactionary twitter safe-space (and the soothing reassurances of his sycophants), he bitterly acknowledged his folly:

But even in defeat, in the immediate aftermath of his humiliation and destruction, AA’s pride was manifest: the implication of this tweet was that AA—a scholar and a gentleman—had wasted his precious time attempting to reason with some ignoramus. As we have already, this would become a common theme throughout AA’s subsequent tweets and comments: desperate to save face, AA was already attempting damage-control, by retrospectively reframing the debate and impugning Jack’s motives and conduct. Indeed, AA even went so far as to casually suggest to his subscribers that watching the debate would be a waste of their time, because Jack is just a sophist ideologue: “I wouldn’t in all honesty recommend watching the debate.” Unfortunately, none but the most diehard of AA’s fans were buying this act.

This cycle of hubris—the classic trajectory of pride and fall—was perfectly exemplified in the following tripartite tweet-saga. First, there was an ominous herald, as one of AA’s followers warned him of his impending doom prior to the debate:

Then, there was blind confidence, as AA responded by smugly asserting that the LTV is “emphatically wrong,” and thus, he had nothing to fear in the upcoming debate:

Finally, after the debate had run its course, AA’s follower responded to this cocky pre-debate boast with a mournful reproach:

Such was the tragedy of AcademicAgent.

§ 6: AA’s cowardice

AA seems to have a problem with people blocking their detractors on twitter—ostensibly, he regards the practice as a symptom of cowardice or weakness. Consider the following tweet, where AA describes someone who blocked him as an “arch-coward”:

Or consider this tweet, in which AA sarcastically describes someone who blocked him as a “real intellectual”—clearly implying that such behaviour is the opposite of that:

For a final example, note the way in which AA suggests that someone blocking him is a sign of their inability to address his criticisms of their views: “She blocked me rather than answer by the way.”

In short, AA clearly seems to think that blocking detractors is a sign that the blocker in question is an anti-intellectual coward who can’t face criticisms. In light of this, imagine my shock when AA blocked me, after I pointed out that he didn’t seem to know the basics of Marxism:

And it wasn’t just me—many other victims of AA’s sensitivity would emerge throughout the day, including Xexizy, Mexie, Meep-meh, ActuallyD0ng, an(t)archist 🐜‏, and many others.

AA has since unblocked many of his detractors, but his cowardice continued to manifest in his refusal to engage with ideological opponents, as we can see here:

AA expressed a similar sentiment in a comment on youtube, where he vowed to never again engage with Marxists:

This point was reiterated in another comment, in which he also vowed never to debate Jack again:

AA’s excuse for this retreat was the claim that debating Marxists is a “complete waste of time,” but this is suspicious given AA’s earlier confidence that the LTV is “emphatically wrong.” This tension is also evident in AA’s final response-video, in which he claimed that Marxists have no arguments, reiterated his refusal to debate Jack, and further declared that he will no longer debate the LTV, and that he will no longer speak to Marxists, and that he will not take any further questions on it, and that “it’s basically a settled issue,” and that “it doesn’t even require debate—this is how an economy works.” If AA is correct in these bold claims, then one would expect him to have no difficulty in debating and humiliating Jack in particular and Marxists in general. But alas, AA fled, leaving various “final” messages across youtube and twitter:

All of this is particularly puzzling given that AA equates Marxists to “social justice warriors,” given that both groups allegedly rely upon ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments. AA explicitly identifies this alleged reliance on personal-attacks as a reason for his refusal to engage with Marxists anymore, but mysteriously, he continues to hound SJWs on youtube and twitter. If SJWs are just like Marxists, then why does AA attack the former and run from the latter?

Summary

Before we proceed to the funny reactions, here is a summary of what we have seen: (1) AA continually equivocated on ‘value’ during his debate with Jack, and subsequently committed to this equivocation by appealing to Semantic Realism and other non-sequitur rationalisations; (2) AA doesn’t understand and/or rejects the scientific method (3) AA lied about the debate by claiming victory in retrospect, even though he was thoroughly defeated; (4) AA lied about his knowledge of Marx and Marxism, and attempted to excuse his ignorance of the LTV by misrepresenting fundamental elements of the theory as mere trivia; (5) AA was blinded by hubris prior to the debate, and expressed a confidence disproportionate to his knowledge and capabilities; and finally, (6) AA is a coward who hypocritically blocked numerous critics, and refuses to respond to his Marxist detractors. Overall, AA exhibits a consistent ignorance of science in general and Marxism in particular; he completely failed to substantiate his initial claim that the LTV is “emphatically wrong,” and most of his compensatory ‘criticisms’ after the debate were already refuted during the debate.

Addison DeWitt would be ashamed.

§ 7: Funny Reactions

Despite AA’s desperate attempts to convince everyone everywhere that he wasn’t utterly crushed by Jack during the debate, most of those who witnessed this spectacle remain unconvinced. What follows is a choice selection of their reactions, from youtube, twitter, and discord.