Celtic fans know that on certain subjects there is no “debate” to be had.

One of the worst developments in the media industry over the past decade or so has been this notion that every debate has to be “balanced.” That if you have one person expressing a view, you must have someone expressing the opposite, even if the first is backed by facts, logic, science, and evidence—and the second is simply the rantings of a raging idiot.

One of the ways I’ve seen arguments grind to a halt is when someone trots out the familiar line: “That’s my opinion, and I’m entitled to express it.”

True enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But that doesn’t mean we should take all opinions seriously, because not all opinions carry equal weight. Not all points of view are worthy of consideration.

Take a sterling example from Twitter yesterday: some guy claimed that James Tavernier is the greatest right-back in the history of Scottish football. Now, this guy calls himself a journalist, based on the fact that he’s written for various online publications.

By that definition, I suppose I’m a journalist too, but I wouldn’t describe myself that way because I know what actual journalism looks like. I respect the profession too much to claim the title, even if some so-called “journalists” have done nothing but degrade it.

This clown suggested he’d been having a debate with another journalist about the subject.

But what he really meant was that he was talking to someone stating a reasoned opinion, and he was answering it with ranting nonsense.

That’s not a debate. If one person is spouting garbage—categorised as idiotic if we’re being generous—that’s not a conversation worth having. It’s just someone talking nonsense.

I watched Adolescence the other night.

It’s been getting rave reviews, and deservedly so. I thought it was outstanding. The scene that stuck with me was Stephen Graham’s character buying paint, and some random guy in the store gives him an unsolicited opinion on the story’s central event. His take is completely detached from reality, a bizarre conspiracy theory that immediately marks him as a lunatic.

The world is full of these muppets, these people who think they alone see the hidden connections, the grand deception, the “real” truth behind everything.

And the craziest thing about them? It’s not just what they believe—it’s that they genuinely think they’re the enlightened ones, while the rest of us are blind sheep.

They’re everywhere. The Trumpers, the flat-Earthers, the 9/11 truthers, the birthers. The anti-vaxxers, the Covid and climate change deniers.

Listen to any of them for five minutes, and you’ll come away convinced they don’t believe a single guilty person is in prison anywhere in the country. In a sane world, none of these people would be taken seriously, much less be granted the legitimacy of a “debate.”

Because there’s no debate. They live in an alternative reality, and trying to argue with them is pointless. They reject science, facts, and logic—so where do you even start?

Now, I recognise that a discussion about who the best right-back in Scottish history is doesn’t reach the level of scientific fact. But we do exist in a material world where reasonable judgments can be made on such things. And if someone doesn’t accept that Danny McGrain is the best right-back ever to play in Scotland, then I have to question what reality they inhabit.

Even as that clown was promoting his nonsense, the BBC was publishing an article about the so-called debate over which of the Glasgow clubs is the “bigger club.”

They based their conclusions on data from an analytics firm that ranked clubs across the UK. Celtic came in 5th. The Ibrox club came 8th. I don’t know what metrics they used, but “Celtic is the bigger club” seems a fair assessment to me—both from their findings and from reality itself.

This isn’t a debate to me, any more than the claim that McGrain was Scotland’s best right-back. We’ve won 13 of the last 14 league titles. We have a bigger stadium. We have more money. Our fanbase is smarter and savvier. Our club is more widely respected in places that matter—like UEFA. Oh, and there’s the small matter of having an unbroken history.

Even with the “survival lie” taken into account, we’ve overtaken them as Scotland’s most successful club. And over the next few years, we’ll only extend that lead until it’s an inescapable reality for a generation or more. As far as I’m concerned, this argument was settled when Fergus unfurled the first league flag at the new stadium. It should have been settled for everyone else in 2012.

That there has ever been a serious debate about this since 2012 is laughable. Celtic stands tall. Rangers died. The new club at Ibrox is a shadow of what came before. So where’s the debate? It cannot claim to be on Celtic’s level, far less ahead of us. And that’s just obvious.

Some things are beyond question—like gravity, climate change, and the fact that the Earth is round. The opposite viewpoint on those isn’t up for debate, and neither is this. James Tavernier, the best right-back in Scottish history? The Ibrox club, bigger than Celtic?

Nobody’s debating these things, and nobody ever will.

It’s nice that some number-crunchers have weighed in on the latter, but it was never really a debate. It was a bunch of people shouting nonsense versus a group of people armed with facts.

The problem with so much of our national discourse is that some insist on giving both sides equal weight—when one is objectively, indisputably ridiculous.

The latest Trinity Tims podcast is out now.