When HB attacks ET, he lies about what ET said and what ET’s beliefs are. He also omits ET’s name, link, or any way to find him via web search.
When ET attacks HB, ET quotes HB a bunch, names him, and links him.
From this, you can get a pretty good idea of who is right.
People are highly resistant to this kinda meta analysis sometimes, but not other times. It’s a meta analysis because I didn’t discuss the content of the dispute between HB and ET. I looked at attributes of the discussion and discussers. I chose attributes that are easy to objectively judge. E.g. it shouldn’t be very hard, subjective or controversial to judge whether or not ET gave HB’s name or used accurate quotes. It’s the kind of factual matter that most people should find easy to decide and to agree with everyone else about. You’d expect everyone to reach the same conclusion about it. That’s different than the content of the dispute between ET and HB – you’d expect different people to agree with different philosophical positions and for it to be hard to reach a clear, objective conclusion.
A similar meta analysis can be done for the dispute between ET and DD. ET wrote down arguments in public. ET asked for a conflict resolution discussion. ET said grievances – things that are not OK that he wants to stop. DD did not make arguments, did not express grievances, and is unwilling to attempt conflict resolution. So, regardless of who is right about various particulars under dispute, we can look at these meta issues about how people are handling the dispute. (The particulars are hard to list since DD hasn’t even tried to name them, but we can infer some. E.g. there’s presumably a dispute about whether the DD’s statement, that ET claims is a lie, is a lie or not a lie. Presumably it is DD’s position that it’s somehow not a lie, though it’s hard to imagine how he could argue that position, which is perhaps why he hasn’t argued it.) This meta analysis seems to damn DD.
If people would respect meta analysis like this in general, it could be used as a very powerful tool (some might say weapon). E.g. we could find a point of disagreement between ET and pretty much any public intellectual, then consider meta facts like who is willing to debate and who isn’t. But people won’t take that seriously, integrate it into their thinking, and practice it until it’s intuitive. Nor will they give counter-arguments.
One difficulty is it’s fairly common to lie that you gave lots of great arguments and the other guy didn’t and won’t debate. But investigating meta facts like those is broadly easier than figuring out the issues themselves. Those kinds of claims should be easier to reach clear conclusions about and get widespread agreement about, if people would actually try.