And finally I do admit my obvious attempt to draw away a possible closed debate away from the realms of the insubstantive into the opinionated metaphoric analysis. The facts of the debate have been well settled, the winner declared. However facts do not always correspond to the interpretations given them, and in this sense, these can clear the air, or, obfuscate them.
In this debate, without going into particulars, there is an attempt for closurr, closure in the sense of making irrelevant the continuation of trying to create grey areas between the questions of, whether or not, humans are livestock.
This grey area would create a sense of irresolution, where. Such may not be needed, since there is always some leakage of information which I’m wrong hands, can develop further information, ultimately resulting in adjacent areas of misinformation.
This is why, at times the original source is needed to validate whatever spin happens to gain the upper hand in any newly formed conviction.
Therefore to my mind, the question of debt, although outmoded and substantially outmoded, retains its formal elements, and seeks validation with or by formal authority.
The material content will eschew no difference between class consciousness in one hand and literally substantive ideas by which such consciousness is figured.
So stripping away a less formal argument of contestable substantive ideas, may not imitate them, merely put them on hold. They are still there, but rendered ineffective.
That there always remains a leakage , of that I have no doubt, and the supposed doubt always arises, when the similarities overweight the exact originals.
Therefore, rather then supposing the two forms of debating being similar or distinct, could very well show an analogy between a proto argument of a split idea of convincing Trumpians of their weakness or ineptitude of developing a public persona of a misinformed bunch, more reactive than autonomous, more steeple livestock than human.