As one who prefers to avoid the TK v NTK debate, I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but I will say this, on top of what I've already said about Mr. Ed, and I wish I'd already articulated it: he's good at enunciating words, so he'd be much better at radio than at video. In other words, he speaks clearly, but he also has a style of speaking that is designed to brook no argument with him. Pay attention to the manner in which he pauses for breath -- usually other than at the end of sentences; clearly his style of debate -- and even the manner in which he reads a prepared statement -- reflects the approach he takes with people in person; it's his personality. This, and his general demeanor, are purposefully intended to prevent anyone else getting in a word edgewise and reflects a personality that doesn't just emerge when he's reading a prepared statement: this is a man who is so self-righteous that he assumes that only those who already entirely agree with him might have a valid point he hasn't already addressed. This is a man with the style of speaking typical of current progressivist leftists. There is no room for discussion with him or his ilk, and those who disagree are not only wrong, they are contemptible. He may wear a ball cap, but that's either an affectation or perhaps a way to hide baldness, because, in essence, he's an effete snob. Zec, I love watching you go off on this man, and I think you do actually get to the crux of the biscuit in that this has something to do with his manhood, but I seriously doubt you will ever get through to him on that channel. He's not going to care. Well, let me put it another way: it'll probably stick in his craw a bit, but it won't matter, because you aren't his target audience: what he does and says is intended to impress a whole 'nother set of people: mostly women, but predominantly sophisticated leftists and other snobbish fundamentalists. As I wrote above, it's a type of mental adultery that is one of the only avenues of seduction currently remaining for progressives to engage in without setting off alarm bells.
In any case, if I were a Torah Keeper/Hebrew Roots/Messianic person, I would be very wary of blessing this man as a laudable spokesperson for your movement. It will be tempting to bifurcate such a person and say, "Oh, he's just wrong about A and B, but overall he's a tremendous voice for our era on C and D." Mr. Ed would mop the floor at just about any high school or college debate, but the problem is that he has a formula that would work no matter which stand he took. I don't trust such people. He floats back and forth between quoting Scripture and quoting like-minded authors, both without noting the differing levels of authority between the two and always quoting like-minded authors in a way that implies that no countervailing opinions worth noting even exist. Most authorities this, most authorities that. "There really is no debate about X." "There really is no debate about Y." I always want to gag when I hear someone say that or read it in print. If there were no debate, then why are you debating?
This is not someone I would want on my side.
