Skeptics vs. Believers Debate Questions

[skepticality]

So,

Tomorrow marks the busy time for me and Swoopy, as we will be packing our stuff and heading downtown to setup for Skeptrack 2008 at Dragon*Con!

I just talked with the X-Track Director and we want to gather questions from people for the moderator of the big debate to ask the panelists.

What would YOU ask if you were there to make both sides answer?

Again, we decided to NOT go religious in any way, since it never ends well. But, all the other types of strange woo out there are fair game!

So, please, shoot some questions and tomorrow afternoon before we go downtown, I'll gather them and take them to the pre-debate meeting and try to get a few into the schedule.

Also, I got my permission I needed this morning. After Dragon*Con is over, and I get all the editing done and such, we will have DVD's for sale of the ENTIRE Skeptic track events. So, you won't miss what happens if you really want to see it! :cool:

[Boo]

Is the increase in measles and other childhood diseases with the known potential for serious disability and death from the decrease in vaccinations a worthwhile trade off given there is no verifiable evidence that vaccines cause Autism?




Boo

[Dicon]

What evidence would convince you that <insert woo here> is BS?

[Reed]

Hmmm. Both sides? That makes it more interesting.

What was the last non-trivial belief you held that you have since rejected? Explain the steps that led to the change.

What idea had you rejected for years that you now accept? Again, explain.

What is the value and the limitations of Occam's Razor?

When is it legitimate for a layperson to reject an informed consensus? (e.g., on evolution or AGW)

How do you distinguish between a crank and a legitimate minority opinion?

Are cognitive biases (such as confirmation bias) always bad?

When is a self-described skeptic not a skeptic?

[CFLarsen]

Is it possible to skeptically determine which political platform is the most skeptical (and therefore the preferred version to skeptics)?

[skepticality]

Thank you all!

I put all of these into the big document with the many others I gathered from other places. Later today, or early tomorrow, there will be a meeting to narrow down the final debate question list before the event.

We will try to put up some of the best bits of video from the Skeptrack onto YouTube, etc... also we will be filming the entire set of events for Skeptrack and hopefully after the event we will have DVD sets of all the events, lecture, etc, available for purchase so you can see what ya'll missed. :)

[Ocelot]

Do you think UFO's might actually be angels or dragons rather than flying saucers?

[Reed]

The debate moderator (Kelly?) seemed more interested in hearing the sound of his own voice than asking tough questions.

As the consensus of the skeptic feedback session suggests, the debate needs to be longer (2.5 hours) or at least more structured.

[Phlebas]

What a bloodbath.

[ottle]

I hated the moderator but the debate was excellent, when the panelists actually got to talk. Steve Novella is the most awesomest awesome in the awesome world.

[Wowbagger]

Steve Novella is the most awesomest awesome in the awesome world. No kidding! He answered the first question I had, before I was able to ask it.

[Phlebas]

If I ever have to debate anyone on anything, I want Ben Radford on speed dial.

Priest: "Your textbooks cost more than ours."

Ben: "We update ours."

[skepticality]

I know, there were a few real classics during that debate actually. I got word from the Dragon*Con TV people that they will send me the raw footage they took of those 'big room' events once all the tapes are accounted for and cataloged. Once I have them and get the time, I am going to start to put stuff up on YouTube, etc... :)

What is REALLY funny is that, I would like to see a different moderator as well, this year we just didn't have time at the end to figure out someone else. All of us were too damn busy with our 'real' lives and lots of the events had to be organized at the end of the cycle.

Now, oddly enough, I have had several e-mails and even one phone call, (I still don't know who gave out my home phone number), about the debate. All of those were in comment to the debate and all the fuss about the moderator. All the additional feedback was that they didn't mind the moderator and actually enjoyed him in a way. I'd dismiss all of that, if it wasn't for the fact that one of them was the head of events for MIT, and one of the others is a professor of Law from Auburn... <shrug>

Myself, I'd like to see a more 'structured' debate next year. Or at least something with less moderator, and more panel member discussion.

What would ya'll think about doing a 'YouTube' type debate format? :)