In a recent dialogue about this video questioning Lhamo Dondrub about his Guru devotion, someone remarked about making him uneasy and roasting him every chance we get. I agree in a way, but believe that one main objective in this would be to get his audience to also start to question him, and we do not open peoples minds by insulting someone they adore, the psychology generally does't work out that way. When he says 'you only have one side of the story' his audience is like, 'yeah, you only have one side of the story' and so we've already lost the debate and opportunity!
Rather, I feel it would have been much more productive to use such an opportunity to cite some abuses then ask him to disprove the evidence of abuse. Nobody in there cares about the arguments supporting Dorje Shugden as a Buddha or valid lineage nor do they typically seem to give a shit about Dondrub's Guru devotion. The audience will more likely take a reasonable question into consideration if the abuse is presented directly.
While it is important to validate the Protector and practice, the most immediate thing is to bring attention to how a difference of opinion is not a valid reason to abuse people, that there is undeniable evidence of abuse, and 'please will you give reasons disproving this'.
