Formalized Substack Debates?

my sales pitch

Jun 08, 2025

Listen up,

. No one likes your Notes system. And we hate the sexstackers. Moderated debates must occur to defeat the weak links and expose the cowards. Little subscriber bubbles and ghettos must be broken. Chaos, change, then growth.

Substack is a growing platform with the possibility to grow even more. Elon Musk once tried to buy this place. It is in weak competition with X, even if that competition is fleeting and likely parochial at times. According to the Wikipedia page, Substack has attracted writers from every avenue and walk of life - there are Westerners, foreigners, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, fascists, monarchists, environmentalists, reporters, journalists, authors, poets, and conspiracy theorists. Substack has also gathered a large degree of high-quality writers from the “far-right” as well, and this brings me to the purpose of this article.

There are big personalities operating on Substack, some with international notoriety, some with national fame, and a great deal of folks with cult internet fame. We have representatives from many different groups who publish writings on Substack. We also have a growing number of new faces and personalities which will likely strike out into new areas once they are established, and their time on Substack will be nothing more than a chapter in their great storybook. Basically, there’s a high quantity of high quality genuine right-wingers on Substack.

Why in the world aren’t we debating each other in a formalized manner?

I think this idea has great merit. I will list my reasons below. Substack pretends to be the stomping ground of intellectuals, when in reality it is flooded with sexstackers and lowly dating bloggers. Substack wishes to be competition with X, yet there are no “substack spaces” where folks mingle and argue in a public forum, we just have the shitty Notes system. I truly think that Substack users could benefit from pursuing formalized debates, and here are my reasons:

The most important reason is that we are constantly arguing in the Twitter-esque Notes sections - this should slow down to a degree, and we can mitigate this with moderated debates.
Substack allows for joint-writing on an article, it also allows for podcasting. We have two available mediums, which is better than Twitter.
Iron sharpens iron, and we can better understand our own views and those of others. Our rhetoric will grow, and our historical knowledge will deepen.
We can push our ideas and viewpoints forward into more spaces, we can gain traction and defeat others in the public arena.
Clips and sections of the debates can be used as propaganda for specific movements, and advertisement for different views and personalities.

How would it work?

I do not like Substack, really. I think podcasts are the best route for this debate idea of mine. However, the best article-debate I ever read was between

Gildhelm

and

Layne A. Jackson

. Here is Gildhelm’s article, he links to Layne’s response at the beginning, it is a great debate on the origins of Yahweh, the God of Israel. Article-debates would probably be the bread-and-butter of this idea, but ‘stackers such as

Logan's Rant

James

from Agentic Living could be great moderaters for an idea like this, and all it would take is the creation of a Substack publication which specifically serves this purpose.

Do you guys want to see more Pagan vs Christian debates, but formalized and less vitriolic?

What about internal pagan debates between folkists vs universalists?

What about traditional Christians versus modern Judeo-Christians?

What about fascists versus communists?

What about Northern Yankees versus Southern Confederates?

INCELS VERSUS SEX-BLOGGERS?

ANTI-SEMITES VERSUS PHILOSEMITES?

What about

Imperium Press

Richard Hanania

What about

Academic Agent