Live debates should be left to those who are good at it. Trial attorneys get serious training for it; scientists, not so much. But a debate could be conducted in writing. Such debates used to take place in biomedical journals, before Fauci led the HIV/AIDS debacle, destroyed Peter Duesberg's career as an example to the others, and began building his $6 billion pharmaceutical fraud empire.
If so, wouldn't it be defeating the purpose in this case?
Live debates should be left to those who are good at it. Trial attorneys get serious training for it; scientists, not so much. But a debate could be conducted in writing. Such debates used to take place in biomedical journals, before Fauci led the HIV/AIDS debacle, destroyed Peter Duesberg's career as an example to the others, and began building his $6 billion pharmaceutical fraud empire.
I donтАЩt like high stakes, sudden death live debates, for that reason.
I wasnтАЩt good at street fighting and there are similarities: looking for weaknesses in your opponent rather their argument.
The former never crosses my mind. So IтАЩm pretty unlikely to win debates in which a skilled opponent uses those techniques.
ItтАЩs mostly a measure of debating skill, rather than of the merit of an argument.