Outside of the 2 minute tidbits he's provided to the MSM (which is not much to go on), I think he is very selective about who he speaks to on social and ethical issues because of his desire to make people with opposing viewpoints look as foolish as possible, like the talk show with the trans woman. Otherwise, he likes having a platform where he can just go off with little resistance, like the Rubin report or his various speaking engagements.

He can be selective in this way and still be great at debating. Given his rapid-fire manner of speaking and the way he organizes his points, I think he would argue expertly against anyone he debated against, despite the fact that many arguments he uses are not based on facts.

Hence my comparison to Ted Cruz, since they both have backgrounds in law. When Cruz debated Sanders, he was able to out argue Sanders and, in my opinion, win the debate. This was in spite of the fact that Sanders had an ethical superiority (given the inherent altruism of providing everyone health coverage), and a factual superiority (for equal or lesser cost we can provide health care to everyone, instead of most people under a private model, and without diminishing levels of care, as hospitals would receive more money than they would under a private model).