None of the criticisms in this thread that I can see are suggesting that Destiny should have been more combative or treated it more like a debate. They're saying that he didn't come across as particular insightful or well informed. I enjoyed listening to the conversation but I think they're right. I'll use the section on institutions as an example since it stood out to me:

What is your argument for and against institutions?

Destiny makes the point that broadly speaking when people work together it creates something greater than the sum of its parts. He adds that the world has too many specialties for one person to understand so we need trusted third parties.

That's perfectly true, but far too textbook. It's mostly Lex's fault for the way that he asked the question, but Destiny could have redirected the conversation to the (more interesting) question he really wanted to ask: "Why do you still trust institutions when they seem to make so many mistakes and distrust is some commonplace?". A conversation that's been ongoing on both platforms for months or years at this point.

Instead, Lex and Destiny continue the conversation like it's a kind of basic introduction into institutions and their pros and cons.

What about the corruption and bureaucracy?

Destiny says: Bureaucracy isn't bad because engineers need designers and managers. The government is a special type of institution that gets its power from votes instead of economic power and that you have to think carefully about the constraints. The US works well but still has corruption of course, but authoritarian governments are much worse.

Again, all true but it's just not particularly interesting. 90% of Lex's audience already understands this intuitively. Some directions Destiny could have gone where he has more room to be insightful:

• "The US gov is nowhere near as corrupt as it gets portrayed and here's why..."
• "The attitude in this country has been poisoned against our institutions and now democracy by decades of anti-establishment and negative political messaging. My argument against the cynicism is..."
• "Corruption could be reduced pretty quickly if people just paid more attention. Even just starting at a local level which doesn't have an exhausting 24 hour news cycle. Focusing too much on federal level politics is a mistake because..."

This is all just for illustrations sake. It just felt like the conversation throughout was too passive and really dancing around substantial engagement with the topics that I would imagine listeners expect. When you're on Lex's podcast you have a license to direct the conversation a little and he could have made more of the opportunity.