Dishonest / harmful "ideas" need / deserve to be exposed as what they are -- dishonest and harmful.

Spinning it any other way would be a form of giving credit / value to these poor "ideas". Especially when you consider that what people like Dave Rubin are doing isn't so much about crafting a well thought out argument -- it's more about having a large platform and spewing out vast amounts of ignorant rhetoric with the understanding that some of it WILL stick, regardless of how stupid it is, because it's the same message that's being delivered ad nauseam.

Making indefensible claims, dancing around talking points and spewing out ten-dollar-words that make no sense in a debate, while loosely implanting ideas about 'cultural marxism', the 'blight of illegal immigration', and the 'grandeur of trickle-down American blooded libertarianism', is exactly what persona's like Dave Rubin are hoping to do.

Exposing their characters as at-best ignorant, and at-worst dishonest, is the most effective way to do the same for the ideas they're espousing.

Calling it "dunking" and feigning sensitivity is another way of subverting the discussion away from how harmful some of these ideas are.

All said -- I do enjoy Michael Brooks' impression of Dave Rubin.