Lad recently admitted so when he stated that he disagrees with "certain" Catholic positions held by pretty much every Traditional Catholic priest, even though said priests "graduated" from seminary and dedicated their lives to Catholic teachings and principles.

I would have a moderator do their best to get both sides to agree to a statement of each debated point before moving on. These agreed upon points will remain visible during the debate, so there is no loss of progress causing endless circular arguing. It would also keep the individuals on point, so they don't jump around and never nail down agreed upon principles.

Dyer and other false apologists mainly focus on ripping apart conciliar popes and the false church or cherry-picking obscure quotes from the past. Foolishly, Dyer has a 2 hour video "debunking sedevacantism" using Pontrello's book. As others have pointed out, these men are flip-floppers and likely grifters. I left a few comments on another schismatic channel Ubi Petrus, where they also called out the Dimonds. Turns out the Dyer hosts a Twitter live stream where he controls who comes on or when it's time for the opponent to stop talking. The Dimonds want a formal debate on a neutral channel, similar to Pints with Aquinas. Dyer wouldn't last more than 5 minutes.

I agree. Dyer might make the excuse of it not being worth his time, but he just entertained a "debate" with a so-called "Zionist Catholic," probably knowing it would be an easy win and boost his channel. Dyer does not seem honest.

Yes, I'm beginning to come to that conclusion.  I'd rather see a respectful discussion and exchange of ideas, where both parties are seeking the truth and not attempting to "win" or "overcome" the other side.  This exacerbates the dialectic of extremes, where the sides over-react to one another, get entrenched in their positions, and often error in the opposite direction.

If I had to structure a "debate", I would make it so that it would be alternating 2-minute segments of talking, more an exchange of ideas, a back and forth, than some kind of competition or contest, putting on display the worst qualifies of sophistry.

Very few people are open to looking for the truth but simply want to be proven right.

They should try to avail themselves of Dyer's open invitation.

I remember bringing this up in the past and my "Orthodox" opponent mentioned something along the lines of converting 100 eskimos in Alaska...

I think the area that the Dimond's will struggle with is the issue that Dyer, Ubi Petrus and David Erhan would most assuredly zero in on, and that is the Pseudo Isidorian decretals, the Symmachian forgeries and the Donation of Constantine. I have implored the Dimonds on many occasions to address this with a video, as the implications are quite serious,  and not only have they ignored it, they censored my request on other video comment sections.


My next best alternative was to ask Bishop Sanborn on a recorded Q&A with Stephen Heiner and they censored me as well. I realize the issue is unknown amongst most Catholics, but it is a serious one that EO apologists have been making hay with as of late. By ignoring or censoring the topic, it implies a point for the Eastern side.