Roosh suggests that it is best to limit one’s responses “to haters with a bigger audience than you.” I very much disagree. I think it is best to take on all comers and crush them no matter who they happen to be.
Who do you find more intimidating? The fighter who only takes on foes of greater size and stature in the ring or the one who brutally beats down a little girl with the same casual violence he uses to beat the hell out of a professional boxer? I suggest that the latter is almost surely going to be the much more fearsome opponent.
I understand why climbers like Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers will only debate those with whom the debate is somehow expected to enhance their stature. But that’s indicative of someone seeking personal PR, not intellectual competition, and in the long run, it is counterproductive because a refusal to engage costs both credibility as well as the ability to engage formidable opposition.
As for me, I’ll take on anyone, friend or foe. And every time I lose a point, or even a debate, it only makes me that much more prepared for the next round. Speaking of which, I should finish The Last Witchking soon, so I expect to have the next round in the inflation/deflation debate up on Monday.