I think it's all about a cost/benefit analysis about how many people can be helped and educated by seeing their (Tomi Lahren, etc.) bad points rebutted, versus the danger of their (stupid) message reaching more people.
I tend to like where Noah and Charlamagne are coming from here. Our country is in a crazy spot right now. I tend to think the people that hold Tomi Lahren's viewpoints hold them. I don't think she's swaying a ton of people, and I don't think she has lots of people like

"She actually makes some good points". I think her listeners already think what she thinks, and I think there is a greater possibility of good, when I think about how many people that might be on the fence, right? So as an example---let's take someone that doesn't understand BLM, but they're open minded and willing to learn. We need as many people on the good side of this fight as possible. I would rather that person be exposed to Tomi Lahren AND Trevor Noah or Charlemagne, and not just Tomi Lahren by themselves. Does that make sense?
I guess I'm sort of always for bad logic being exposed for what it is. She does have a nasty message, and I totally get why some people think it would be smarter to just not even give her any more exposure. People have awful media literacy these days. Look at how many people believe that Pizzagate bullshyt. If someone is going to be exposed to Tomi Lahren I would rather there be some checks and balances in place, so they aren't being exposed to her without a counterpoint.
It's definitely an interesting debate. Right now that's sort of where I stand, but I'm open to being swayed.