The debate between Dave Smith and Douglas Murray, moderated by Joe Rogan, was a profound clash of worldviews about knowledge, authority, freedom of speech, and the role of independent commentators in modern society. The conversation covered broad political ground, but it continually returned to a few essential philosophical disputes: whether non-experts have the right to shape public opinion, how historical narratives are handled in a fragmented media landscape, and whether the breakdown of institutional trust excuses the rise of "alternative" voices.
1. Central Themes and Points of Conflict
The primary fault line lay between Smith’s populist libertarianism and Murray’s cautious defense of expertise and historical orthodoxy.
Smith championed the idea that expertise had been irreparably discredited—particularly through the handling of COVID-19, the endless wars in the Middle East, and other catastrophic failures of the "expert class." He argued that once institutions lose moral and factual credibility, ordinary citizens are not only permitted but obligated to engage in public inquiry. Smith defended figures like Daryl Cooper, asserting that long-form podcasting and independent scholarship were legitimate forms of historical investigation even if produced outside formal academic structures.
Murray argued that while freedom of opinion must be preserved, not all opinions carry equal weight. He insisted that public conversation should maintain a hierarchy of knowledge: the trained, careful, and credentialed historian must not be equated with the self-educated podcaster. Murray viewed Smith's tolerance of fringe historical revisionism (particularly concerning Churchill and Hitler) as reckless, warning that it encourages dangerous ideas to seep into the mainstream under the guise of “questioning everything.”
2. Discussion on Experts Versus Amateurs
Smith posited that the collapse of institutional credibility necessitated a democratization of discourse. He cited the COVID-19 fiasco, the Iraq War lies, and general failures of Western elites as proof that "experts" no longer deserved a monopoly over public opinion. In Smith’s view, argumentation and evidence should be weighed on their merits rather than deferred to because of credentials.
Murray emphasized that while institutions can and do fail, this does not warrant wholesale replacement of serious study with popular speculation. He noted that history, particularly concerning topics like Churchill or Hitler, demands careful handling lest myths take root in public consciousness. Murray’s concern was that podcasters and amateur historians, untrained in archival work or historical methodology, might subtly revise collective memory in service of contemporary ideological battles.
Smith rejected Murray’s alarmism, arguing that challenging establishment narratives—even clumsily—was a necessary corrective force, especially in a world where "experts" had so often protected lies and blunders.
3. Historical Revisionism and the Question of Dangerous Ideas
The debate on Daryl Cooper and revisionist history became a proxy war over broader cultural anxieties. Murray was alarmed that Cooper, in casual podcast remarks, had floated provocative ideas about Churchill being a “villain” of World War II or had commented, however hyperbolically, on Hitler’s public anti-Semitism in the 1930s. To Murray, even raising such notions was an irresponsible distortion of history, capable of emboldening darker elements on the political right.
Smith defended Cooper by clarifying context: Cooper's remarks were often hyperbolic or ironic, made in long, nuanced explorations, not in simplistic rejections of historical consensus. Smith accused Murray of concept creep—lumping serious, complex thinkers in with cruder Holocaust deniers or outright Nazi apologists. Smith insisted that mainstream institutions and their failure to allow dissent created the very environment where amateur voices rose to prominence.
4. Logical Fallacies in the Arguments
Smith's Fallacies:
Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy): Smith sometimes implied that because experts lied about Iraq or COVID-19, they are wrong on other matters like history or international conflict.
Strawman Argument: At moments, Smith suggested Murray wanted only credentialed experts to speak at all, when Murray’s actual position was subtler—advocating for more intellectual hygiene, not silencing.
Murray's Fallacies:
Appeal to Authority: Murray often leaned heavily on the authority of traditional experts without always engaging directly with the alternative arguments' substance.
Slippery Slope: He suggested that giving a platform to revisionist historians inevitably leads to Holocaust denial and historical nihilism, a progression that, while plausible in some cases, was not fully justified by the evidence he offered regarding Cooper or Smith.
5. Media Reaction
Reactions to the debate largely fell along ideological lines:
Conservative-libertarian audiences praised Smith for defending free inquiry and attacking what they saw as elite gatekeeping.
Establishment media and mainstream conservatives tended to side with Murray, warning that reckless platforming of non-experts risks corrupting public understanding of crucial historical events.
Libertarian circles emphasized the necessity of distrust toward institutions, arguing that true free speech must include unpopular and controversial voices.
6. Broader Lessons
The exchange revealed a vital tension within any free society. Freedom of speech necessarily permits error, foolishness, and even the platforming of dangerous ideas. Yet without some deference to truth and knowledge, a society risks descending into confusion and nihilism. Smith’s position highlighted the necessity of rebellion against corrupted elites; Murray’s stance reminded that civilization relies on standards, tradition, and a respect for serious scholarship.
The debate illustrated that the collapse of trust in authority has created a profound moral hazard: while rebellion against falsehood is justified, without prudence and rigor, rebellion itself may degenerate into new forms of deception. Neither the credentialed expert nor the popular commentator is inherently trustworthy; each must be judged by the quality of argument, evidence, and good faith.
Konstantin Kisin’s Response to the Debate
Konstantin Kisin’s response to the debate between Dave Smith and Douglas Murray offered a sober and often scathing analysis of the condition of modern media, the nature of authority, and the hazards of conflating entertainment with serious public discourse.
Kisin opened by confessing that he had overestimated the promise of new media. Though initially hopeful that podcasts and independent platforms would rescue public debate from the corruption of legacy media, he now admits that the democratization of media has had unintended consequences. Rather than cultivating a more informed citizenry, it has often produced a landscape where entertainers replace serious thinkers, and where charisma, transgression, and conspiratorial storytelling are rewarded over accuracy, rigor, and truth.
Regarding the Smith-Murray debate, Kisin saw the key divide not merely in their positions on Israel and Ukraine, but in the very structure of thought they represented. Smith, in Kisin’s portrayal, stands as the product of a culture where opinions are entertainment products, judged by how they feel rather than how true they are. Murray, in contrast, represents the traditional standard of expertise, where opinions must be earned through study, evidence, and firsthand experience.
Kisin was highly critical of Daryl Cooper. He categorized Cooper's historical work as clear-cut Nazi apologia, rooted not in serious scholarship but in long-refuted propaganda recycled from figures like Joseph Goebbels and David Irving. Kisin emphasized that defending or minimizing Nazi crimes—even under the guise of storytelling—is not a fresh perspective but an old poison reintroduced through new platforms. He pointed out that while Murray had not listened to Cooper’s full podcast (a weakness Smith and Rogan exploited during the debate), even a full examination of Cooper’s work revealed historical distortions and deliberate revisionism.
Kisin also dismantled the argument, favored by Smith, that one does not need expertise to opine meaningfully. He conceded that arguments from authority can be abused but stressed that some deference to expertise is inevitable and necessary. He illustrated this by noting that very few people could explain how electricity or light bulbs work without quoting authorities, even though they trust and depend upon such technology daily. He accused Smith and his defenders of engaging in inconsistent reasoning: celebrating populist pundits who defer to non-mainstream "experts" while rejecting any authority from the traditional expert class.
Kisin also criticized the misuse of the concept of "lived experience." He pointed out that Murray’s suggestion—that Smith might become better informed by visiting the Middle East—was a reasonable appeal to firsthand observation, not the postmodern racial essentialism that "lived experience" often implies. Kisin maintained that genuine personal exposure to a conflict zone offers perspective that cannot be fully gained through second-hand study, yet Smith treated the suggestion as an elitist demand for identity-based credentialism.
He highlighted that in the current "Podcastistan" culture, the worst sin is to suggest that some voices are not worth amplifying. Kisin lamented the widespread inability to distinguish between censorship (state-imposed bans) and the moral judgment that some ideas are simply bad and ought not to be dignified with massive platforms. He compared the uncritical platforming of Daryl Cooper to the marketing of junk food and addictive drugs: legally permitted, but morally corrosive.
Kisin identified five traits that now dominate new media:
Transgression: Controversial ideas are confused with true ones.
Charisma: Charismatic presentation is valued more than factual accuracy.
Conspiracy: A default assumption that institutions are lying, making any counter-narrative more attractive.
Entertainment Value: Ideas are judged for entertainment more than for truth.
Political Alignment: Revisionist history is accepted because it serves current political goals.
Fallacies in Kisin’s Analysis
Kisin’s analysis, while sharp, was not free of flaws:
Overgeneralization: He paints the entirety of new media with a broad brush, implying that most, if not all, independent commentators fall into the five traps he identifies. While true in many cases, there are serious independent thinkers who maintain high standards.
Appeal to Tradition: His defense of expertise sometimes rests on the assumption that traditional hierarchies of knowledge are inherently better, without fully addressing the real corruption and bias that have discredited many such institutions.
False Equivalence: In criticizing Smith for relying on nontraditional experts like John Mearsheimer or Jeffrey Sachs, he suggests equivalence between citing these respected figures and citing figures like David Irving. While his point about selective trust is valid, not all "alternative experts" are equally disreputable.
Kisin’s overarching point remains powerful: the destruction of institutional trust has created a moral and intellectual vacuum into which charisma, transgression, and conspiracy have poured. In the absence of respect for truth, the loudest and most entertaining voices increasingly dominate, regardless of the merit or danger of their ideas.
Dave Smith’s Response to Konstantin Kisin
Dave Smith’s response to Konstantin Kisin's critique of the Smith-Murray debate was a spirited and often scathing defense of populist skepticism, a reaffirmation of distrust in institutional authority, and a sharp attack on what he sees as the creeping elitism within the new media landscape.
Smith began by admitting some hesitation to respond but ultimately justified it on the grounds that Kisin's arguments were both popular and dangerously wrong. Smith opened by agreeing with Kisin’s early praise of new media’s democratization, but he swiftly pointed out that Kisin contradicted his own premises by criticizing the very freedom that new media enabled. Smith argued that Kisin, much like Murray, lamented the decline of centralized authority only because dissident voices were now winning the public debate, especially on contentious issues like Ukraine and Gaza.
Smith accused Kisin of abandoning a substantive critique of the debate's content. Rather than engaging directly with the facts or arguments Smith had presented, Kisin, according to Smith, shifted the focus to broader complaints about expertise, authority, and media standards. Smith found this tactic evasive and revealing: when unable to refute the anti-war arguments, critics preferred to question the legitimacy of those making them.
Throughout his response, Smith insisted that the core accusation—platforming revisionist or “Nazi apologist” voices like Daryl Cooper—was dishonest. Smith explained that Cooper’s commentary was grossly misrepresented. Rather than defending Nazi atrocities, Cooper criticized both intentional and negligent wartime conduct, holding aggressors morally responsible regardless of intent. Smith accused Kisin of deliberate propaganda tactics, comparing his misrepresentation of Cooper to the mainstream media’s infamous smear campaigns against figures like Joe Rogan during the ivermectin controversy.
Smith also attacked the invocation of David Irving, accusing Kisin and others of guilt by association. He pointed out that Cooper's arguments could just as easily be associated with more respectable figures like Pat Buchanan, yet critics chose the most discrediting association possible. Smith saw this as a cheap tactic to smear dissenters without engaging their actual arguments.
Smith rejected Kisin’s characterization of appeals to expertise, clarifying that he was not opposed to expertise itself but to the idea that only credentialed individuals may participate in public discourse. He distinguished between legitimate reliance on specialization and the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, criticizing Kisin for conflating basic human reliance on specialization (such as trusting an electrician) with intellectual submission to political elites.
Smith challenged the idea that one must physically visit a place, such as Israel or Ukraine, to hold a valid opinion about it. He dismantled this claim as absurd, pointing out that lived experience can enhance understanding but is not the sole or even the primary method of forming valid judgments. He noted that extensive study, debate, and critical thinking can often yield better insights than mere physical presence.
On the broader point, Smith argued that the track record of the so-called expert class—especially in war, pandemic policy, and foreign affairs—had been so disastrous that skepticism was now a rational and even necessary default stance. He cited Murray’s support for the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Libya, and Ukraine as examples of establishment consensus consistently leading to catastrophe.
Fallacies and Weaknesses in Smith’s Analysis
Ad Hominem Tendencies: Smith occasionally veered into personal attacks, accusing Kisin of having ulterior motives or financial incentives (“got a check from Israel”), undermining his own otherwise strong points with unnecessary speculation about bad faith.
False Dilemma: Smith sometimes implied that critics of populist commentary must necessarily support censorship or elitism, ignoring that one could simultaneously defend free speech while advocating for higher standards of discourse.
Strawman Mischaracterization: Smith repeatedly accused Kisin of wanting censorship, although Kisin had not explicitly called for censorship but rather urged for better discernment in choosing credible voices.
Overemphasis on Intentions: Smith leaned heavily on the good faith and depth of research of figures like Daryl Cooper without fully addressing the possibility that even well-researched non-experts can inadvertently spread misleading narratives.
Despite these flaws, Smith’s defense was coherent and forceful. He exposed the growing tendency among establishment-aligned commentators to smear dissenters rather than debate them, and he persuasively argued that the new media revolution is not merely about the volume of voices but about correcting a long-standing imbalance in public discourse.
Smith’s response reflected a broader populist instinct: that arguments must be judged by their substance, not by the credentials of the speaker; that institutions forfeited their right to deference through repeated corruption and failure; and that gatekeeping by a discredited elite is no longer morally defensible in a society striving for truth.
Conclusion
The debate between Dave Smith and Douglas Murray, along with the responses from Konstantin Kisin, highlights the tension between populist skepticism and institutional expertise in modern discourse. Smith’s argument—that repeated failures of traditional authorities justify democratizing knowledge and challenging established narratives—clashes with Murray’s and Kisin’s warnings that dismissing expertise risks enabling misinformation and dangerous revisionism. The key lesson is that while healthy skepticism of institutions is necessary, a functioning society must balance open inquiry with respect for rigorous scholarship, ensuring that dissent does not devolve into conspiracy or intellectual chaos. Ultimately, the debate underscores the need to judge arguments on their merits rather than solely on the credentials of the speaker or their alignment with ideological factions.
Share this post