I was there, front row (you may remember that I said "hi" to you and Pierre behind the curtain before the debate started.) You may also remember that I chimed in because the other side was so preposterous, and then I got yelled at by the moderator. I'm an attorney and a debate champion (obviously from school days.) If you want to debate again and would be open to some pointers to really "win", feel free to DM me or ask Pierre (through J; but he also may still have my phone number) to connect us.
Full disclosure I have not watched the debate yet, but after reading your summary it reminds me of the debate I just watched with Jillian Michael’s vs Body Positivity activists regarding health. Every point Jillian made rooted in scientific studies were completely ignored. I could feel her frustration as she patiently made valid points which were sourced and cited - but since there was no moderator or any baseline agreement on scientific studies or evidence, her opponents merely talked past her or disregarded her information completely. Some claimed “I disagree with all that!” How can you disagree with the factual outcome of dozens of studies? I mean how can you have a debate when one side gets to completely ignore factual evidence??? It was incredibly frustrating and your description of the vaccine debate sounds just like this. https://youtu.be/M7K87rGoGps?si=nTnHu3CNlodwpwqq
The main lesson that you seem incapable of learning is to not engage in any more debates. They are adversarial by nature, making it quite difficult to find anyone willing to participate in such an unpleasant activity. They are also difficult to organize in a way that guarantees that both participants will for sure stick to the rules and conditions of the debate. And finally, whatever debate manages to take place has an extremely low probability of changing public opinion regarding the topic under discussion in the debate. In short, the debate road you can't seem to stop pursuing leads to nowhere productive.
I believe Dr. Kirsch knows that while AI can be useful for streamlining routine tasks, it's ineffective for pursuing truth or creating new mathematical proofs.
More than one-third of the references cited in medical journal articles are inaccurate, and one-fifth of the references cited in those articles are inaccurate.
It's pretty cool that debates like these are now happening. That's a big shift in the Overton window. This is happening in peoples' personal lives as well.
That 100 minutes of talking past each other leads me once again to my anecdotal observation. How is it that any of you meeting attendees were present when your ancestors had no access to injections or more specifically "vaccines" ?
“Is ozone water a universal panacea that will prevent all disease and eliminate the need for vaccines?”
You can talk about vaccines till the cows come home and prove nothing. You just did that. We need an alternative solution.
Ozone water is that solution. Oxygen and water can easily be transformed into the most efficient antiseptic available. It will disinfect anything. You can prevent disease by using ozone water to disinfect your personal environment including your body. Disinfection reduces the number of pathogens, this in turn reduces your chances of infection. Drink it and spray it on your body daily and you may never get sick again.
So, let’s find a solution instead of accomplishing nothing talking about vaccines. They are obviously not the answer, if we are having this discussion. It’s time to move forward into a healthy future with ozone water.
The problem with a debate format is that it's adversarial, about winning, and not about legit problem solving as in how to make jabs safer or demonstrating that they are in fact safe (or not).
If you want to throw money at something, perhaps instead of offering money for a debate, offer money to *whistleblowers* to come out with what reveals the facts/truth/reality re the C19-jab trials, bad manufacturing, ABIM fraudulent collusion against honest doctors (e.g., Kory, Marik, McCullough, etc), media manipulation, pro-jab trollers, and the like; anything to expose what you're actually wanting exposed, you know, like facts/truth/reality of the safety/efficacy of the C19 jabs.
Obviously debate is more fun (if you win) than simply paying money to whistleblowers but I don't see it as a format to advance your objectives. Just a thought.
What I enjoyed most was Dr. Kory’s opening statement. He was so genuine and convincing you can hardly believe those guys would attack him the way they did.
You're assuming all people are coming from a genuine and sincere place of engaging, which two of the four debaters were clearly not. Yes, Kory and Kirsch were trying to get out facts and truth while the other two clowns, well, were being clowns without honorable intent or behavior.
It's obvious they were never interested in debating the points of the studies. Their main focus was to score gotchas. The video was immediately flooded with thousands of generic, insulting pro-vaccine comments so it was also clear they engaged a troll farm before the debate ever started and just triggered it after posting the video. They went overboard and tipped their hand.
Why would they do something like that? Not as part of a serious debate.
Claude is crap. It acts like a college teaching assistant pretending to be a Professor; verbose, risk‑averse, stylistically “professional” but intellectually hollow.
Claude is good for formatting bullet points in Word.
I’ve seen those guys on YouTube. They’re not interested in debate. Dan only recognizes the celebration of autism and thinks mothers are to blame for autism because it’s something they did during pregnancy and then when they get a diagnosis of autism they become hysterical and can’t remember the details of what happened to their child so they blame vaccines. Not sure how he came to that “conclusion” but it might be one of his “topics” to be debated.
I was there, front row (you may remember that I said "hi" to you and Pierre behind the curtain before the debate started.) You may also remember that I chimed in because the other side was so preposterous, and then I got yelled at by the moderator. I'm an attorney and a debate champion (obviously from school days.) If you want to debate again and would be open to some pointers to really "win", feel free to DM me or ask Pierre (through J; but he also may still have my phone number) to connect us.
Full disclosure I have not watched the debate yet, but after reading your summary it reminds me of the debate I just watched with Jillian Michael’s vs Body Positivity activists regarding health. Every point Jillian made rooted in scientific studies were completely ignored. I could feel her frustration as she patiently made valid points which were sourced and cited - but since there was no moderator or any baseline agreement on scientific studies or evidence, her opponents merely talked past her or disregarded her information completely. Some claimed “I disagree with all that!” How can you disagree with the factual outcome of dozens of studies? I mean how can you have a debate when one side gets to completely ignore factual evidence??? It was incredibly frustrating and your description of the vaccine debate sounds just like this. https://youtu.be/M7K87rGoGps?si=nTnHu3CNlodwpwqq
The main lesson that you seem incapable of learning is to not engage in any more debates. They are adversarial by nature, making it quite difficult to find anyone willing to participate in such an unpleasant activity. They are also difficult to organize in a way that guarantees that both participants will for sure stick to the rules and conditions of the debate. And finally, whatever debate manages to take place has an extremely low probability of changing public opinion regarding the topic under discussion in the debate. In short, the debate road you can't seem to stop pursuing leads to nowhere productive.
I believe Dr. Kirsch knows that while AI can be useful for streamlining routine tasks, it's ineffective for pursuing truth or creating new mathematical proofs.
More than one-third of the references cited in medical journal articles are inaccurate, and one-fifth of the references cited in those articles are inaccurate.
https://www.cochrane.org/ja/MR000002/METHOD_yi-xue-za-zhi-nijie-zai-sareruqian-nolun-wen-noji-shu-de-nabian-ji
Medical AI likely gathers data from these kinds of papers.
I tend to avoid anything that includes phrases like "The AI said this."
One guy looks like a shrub and the other a slob. Of course they could not engage in proper debate. Put one in the garden and the other in a slum.
It's pretty cool that debates like these are now happening. That's a big shift in the Overton window. This is happening in peoples' personal lives as well.
That 100 minutes of talking past each other leads me once again to my anecdotal observation. How is it that any of you meeting attendees were present when your ancestors had no access to injections or more specifically "vaccines" ?
Have a debate that matters!!
“Is ozone water a universal panacea that will prevent all disease and eliminate the need for vaccines?”
You can talk about vaccines till the cows come home and prove nothing. You just did that. We need an alternative solution.
Ozone water is that solution. Oxygen and water can easily be transformed into the most efficient antiseptic available. It will disinfect anything. You can prevent disease by using ozone water to disinfect your personal environment including your body. Disinfection reduces the number of pathogens, this in turn reduces your chances of infection. Drink it and spray it on your body daily and you may never get sick again.
So, let’s find a solution instead of accomplishing nothing talking about vaccines. They are obviously not the answer, if we are having this discussion. It’s time to move forward into a healthy future with ozone water.
Let’s debate. Prove me wrong.
The problem with a debate format is that it's adversarial, about winning, and not about legit problem solving as in how to make jabs safer or demonstrating that they are in fact safe (or not).
If you want to throw money at something, perhaps instead of offering money for a debate, offer money to *whistleblowers* to come out with what reveals the facts/truth/reality re the C19-jab trials, bad manufacturing, ABIM fraudulent collusion against honest doctors (e.g., Kory, Marik, McCullough, etc), media manipulation, pro-jab trollers, and the like; anything to expose what you're actually wanting exposed, you know, like facts/truth/reality of the safety/efficacy of the C19 jabs.
Obviously debate is more fun (if you win) than simply paying money to whistleblowers but I don't see it as a format to advance your objectives. Just a thought.
What I enjoyed most was Dr. Kory’s opening statement. He was so genuine and convincing you can hardly believe those guys would attack him the way they did.
You're assuming all people are coming from a genuine and sincere place of engaging, which two of the four debaters were clearly not. Yes, Kory and Kirsch were trying to get out facts and truth while the other two clowns, well, were being clowns without honorable intent or behavior.
It's obvious they were never interested in debating the points of the studies. Their main focus was to score gotchas. The video was immediately flooded with thousands of generic, insulting pro-vaccine comments so it was also clear they engaged a troll farm before the debate ever started and just triggered it after posting the video. They went overboard and tipped their hand.
Why would they do something like that? Not as part of a serious debate.
You mean Dan "My butts not funky" Wison?
To be frank Steve, to me those “lessons learners for next time” were self evident to me first time.
They were always going to smugly talk over the top of you, ridicule you and avoid genuine debate, never in doubt
Claude?
Claude is crap. It acts like a college teaching assistant pretending to be a Professor; verbose, risk‑averse, stylistically “professional” but intellectually hollow.
Claude is good for formatting bullet points in Word.
Ekh
Debunk the funk is a huge dumbass online
But at least he was on brand irl 🤣🤣
Brilliant Steve!
I’ve seen those guys on YouTube. They’re not interested in debate. Dan only recognizes the celebration of autism and thinks mothers are to blame for autism because it’s something they did during pregnancy and then when they get a diagnosis of autism they become hysterical and can’t remember the details of what happened to their child so they blame vaccines. Not sure how he came to that “conclusion” but it might be one of his “topics” to be debated.