Invitation to debate

[alienentity]

I received an invitation via my youtube channel for a debate between truthers and debunkers.
The invitation was sent by a youtube user with the handle 'asbestoslessener'

Here's the contents of his PM to me. Anyone else involved in this? I'm thinking about it pending his reply to a couple of questions I posed. Sounds reasonable but I asked him for some more info.

'I'm trying to organize a serious debate involving getting both truthers and debunkers together in a moderated discussion. My hope is that this will help resolve at least some issues, the format of the posting would be simple Statement/point ->Explanation of statement ->Evidence or proof. I am offering to mediate this discussion on my page and I will not actually be taking part in the debate but will be in charge of making sure people stay on topic, don't repeat themselves, don't avoid questions/facts, say stupid childish insults, and this way we can prevent comment censoring and removal as a comment will only be removed if it did one of the previous things. So far we have at lesat 3 truthers and only 2 debunkers so I ask that you give this some thought, you have nothing to lose by entering in, and I believe this is the perfect way for people to support their opinions and actually HELP others see their side. Would you be willing to participate?'

[Oystein]

I believe such a well-formed and structured debate is only possible on an internet forum if they are 1:1.
With several posters on either side, each participant wants to chime in, so each post receives 2 or more replies, and things grow out of hand.

[T.A.M.]

Just as I have heard many of them say "The time for debate is over.", I now believe they are right. There is nothing left to debate or discuss. Personally, I do not think any of them or their theories are worthy of debate. Proof of that is the fact that 2 engineers representlng them have been on these boards and have not proven squat.''

TAM:)

[Scott Jurgenson]

Just as I have heard many of them say "The time for debate is over.", I now believe they are right. There is nothing left to debate or discuss. Personally, I do not think any of them or their theories are worthy of debate. Proof of that is the fact that 2 engineers representlng them have been on these boards and have not proven squat.''

TAM:)

You know, I wish most people were as logical as you are. Although knowing that so many people have these outlandish ideas about 911 makes me want to debate them until they cry uncle, which they won't. However, it will be fun.

[ozeco41]

We have the model from another arena of scientific debate. Don't agree to debate them it only gives them a platform and makes it look as if there is something credible in their argument.

"At least discuss the controversy" sounds as if there is two sides to discuss. There isn't.

No names no packdrill for identifying which field of science and which of the big names I am paraphrasing.

[R.Mackey]

Have you ever encountered a single Truther who could live up to that format? It's more like "make 1000 wild claims -> refuse to articulate a position -> make call to perfection."

I'm back to my original stance. Forget debates. Write papers or go jump in the lake. I have no confidence in their willingness nor ability to actually debate, and that goes for every last one of them.

[Horatius]

I'm back to my original stance. Forget debates. Write papers or go jump in the lake. I have no confidence in their willingness nor ability to actually debate, and that goes for every last one of them.



Exactly right. If the truthers want a fora where we can follow this format:


the format of the posting would be simple Statement/point ->Explanation of statement ->Evidence or proof.


...we already have it. It's called the scientific and engineering literature. If they can't come up to the standards of evidence and analysis required to publish in reputable journals, why would any professional scientists or engineers lower themselves to their standards?

[Myriad]

Debate is for propositions concerning matters that can actually be influenced by debate and opinion, such as what new legislation a government should enact or other future public decisions.

Debate about topics that are not matters of opinion, such as what happened in a specific historic event, is unutterably pointless. In no way could any conceivable outcome of a debate about (for instance) whether or not demolition charges were in the towers affect whether or not there actually were demolition charges in the towers. There either were or weren't, and whether there were or weren't is not going to change. People researching facts do not reach conclusions by debate and should not need to.

I might be interested in participating in a debate, if and only if a proposition appropriate for debate were introduced and staying on that topic were enforced.

Respectfully,
Myriad