Steve, your frequent comments about debates and nobody accepting your challenge reminds me of the creationism vs. evolution debates over the years. Biologists found it was best not to debate because the creationists were very good debaters, even if their arguments were flawed. In a debate format, they could twist the data to claim what…
Steve, your frequent comments about debates and nobody accepting your challenge reminds me of the creationism vs. evolution debates over the years. Biologists found it was best not to debate because the creationists were very good debaters, even if their arguments were flawed. In a debate format, they could twist the data to claim what the data didn't show in context. By in context I mean a coherent, comprehensive model instead of ad hoc arguments attributing local phenomena to events divorced from greater context.
All of which is to ask, Maybe a debate isn't the right format to get the discussion you want? Maybe a written list of arguments, allowing your opponents to submit a list of counterarguments, and go a couple rounds, would be more acceptable? Each side can involve as many consultants and experts as they wish. Responses would be restricted only by a reasonable word limit/page count to encourage concise writing. Responses should be thoroughly based on fact and referenced. A protocol should be implemented to seek agreement on facts so that the debate can be on interpretation. For example, specific government data or published study data should be agreed by each party as qualified, non-qualified (for reasons X,Y,Z) or uncertain. If agreement is reached on data/facts, you are more than half-way there.
Like Steve, those creationists had truth on their side. Steve is right; "experts" that run from debates in the area of their expertise have something to hide.
Steve, your frequent comments about debates and nobody accepting your challenge reminds me of the creationism vs. evolution debates over the years. Biologists found it was best not to debate because the creationists were very good debaters, even if their arguments were flawed. In a debate format, they could twist the data to claim what the data didn't show in context. By in context I mean a coherent, comprehensive model instead of ad hoc arguments attributing local phenomena to events divorced from greater context.
All of which is to ask, Maybe a debate isn't the right format to get the discussion you want? Maybe a written list of arguments, allowing your opponents to submit a list of counterarguments, and go a couple rounds, would be more acceptable? Each side can involve as many consultants and experts as they wish. Responses would be restricted only by a reasonable word limit/page count to encourage concise writing. Responses should be thoroughly based on fact and referenced. A protocol should be implemented to seek agreement on facts so that the debate can be on interpretation. For example, specific government data or published study data should be agreed by each party as qualified, non-qualified (for reasons X,Y,Z) or uncertain. If agreement is reached on data/facts, you are more than half-way there.
The best debate is in a court of law.
I wish I could agree, but having been through that process, I can't. The legal process is more about winning than truth discovery.
I've been through it too. Sometimes, it's just a matter of allowing the other side to f**k up. In this case, it seems like they would.
Like Steve, those creationists had truth on their side. Steve is right; "experts" that run from debates in the area of their expertise have something to hide.