Why I prefer live debates

This question keeps coming up so here's the answer: every time someone has said, "I refuse to debate you live" it ends up being a waste of time.

I don’t like written “debates” because:

1. They take way too long (can take months)

2. They are too long for anyone to follow

3. The other side can get out of answering the issues and change the topic

4. You can’t get answers to simple “yes/no” questions. Often, the other side doesn’t answer.

5. The other side can stop responding anytime they want.

6. The other side can provide answers that raise more questions than they answer.

7. If the other side stops responding, it leaves the audience hanging wondering who won.

8. When everyone jumps in, as in written debates about whether the virus has been isolated, it becomes even more confusing with the non-expert audience unable to tell who to believe.

I’ve experienced some/all of the above when someone refuses to debate live so that’s the reason I no longer prefer that route to settle issues.

I’m not saying written debates are bad. I’m only saying I vastly prefer live debates for COVID vaccine related topics and those are my reasons. You can disagree with me and I respect your opinion. I’m just explaining my rationale.

My poster-child showing these objections is the written Vaccine Safety Debate between ICAN and the HHS agencies. ICAN represented 55 agencies who wanted to know the answer to 11 questions.

1. October 12, 2017: The “debate” begins with a 37 page opening statement from ICAN containing just 11 questions in the first 18 pages. They threaten legal action under the law if they don’t get the answers they are looking for.

2. Jan 18, 2018: HHS responds with a 10-page letter answering all 11 questions. That letter had to be reviewed and cleared by six government agencies. It contains statements such as “Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine, and are thus not required.” Wow. As you can see, these agencies have our safety as their number 1 priority.

3. December 31, 2018: ICAN points out “The substance of HHS’s responses heightens the serious concerns we previously raised regarding the safety of HHS’s childhood vaccine schedule.” This version is now 88 pages long, more than double the size of the original request because it highlights the deficiencies in the first response and then adds 6 additional questions in Appendix A which begins on page 81.

4. March 12, 2020: ICAN writes a two page letter lamenting the fact that it has been more than a year since their last letter (which was an enormous effort) has not been responded to and giving them 60 days to respond.

Now ask yourself:

1. How many people actually read the entire debate?

2. Who won the debate? Or is it unfinished?

3. Did you see how all the issues I listed above were satisfied?

4. Do you see how over 3 years later we have not achieved resolution?

5. Do you see the asymmetry of how ICAN invested enormous amounts of time in their documents and the other side (with considerably more resources) did not?

This is the real reason why nobody supporting the vaccines wants a live debate: because with a written debate they can string things out forever.

RFK Jr. has been trying for 20 years to get someone qualified (Alan Dershowitz isn’t) to debate him live about vaccine safety. No takers.