Is This Project Worth Undertaking?

[pomeroo]

I was wondering if it might be a good idea to invite prominent twoofers to visit the JREF and engage the regulars here in more-or-less formal debates. I invite suggestions.

TAM complimented me on producing a video record of fantasists in action. That, as it happens, is my purpose in staging these 'Hardfire' debates. We could produce a useful account of the controversies surrounding the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01 by engaging the top conspiracists in debate. I realize that the various threads archived here constitute an invaluable resource for debunkers, but the problem, as everyone understands, is that so much chaff has to be removed to get to the digestible parts.

[T.A.M.]

I like the idea, and in various forms, it has been suggested before. I think it would be of value, but only if such debates were heavily moderated, so as to keep the replies to the facts...ie, it would be useless to allow all of us to pipe in when we want to (we have a tendency to do so).

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

I was wondering if it might be a good idea to invite prominent twoofers to visit the JREF and engage the regulars here in more-or-less formal debates. I invite suggestions.

TAM complimented me on producing a video record of fantasists in action. That, as it happens, is my purpose in staging these 'Hardfire' debates. We could produce a useful account of the controversies surrounding the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01 by engaging the top conspiracists in debate. I realize that the various threads archived here constitute an invaluable resource for debunkers, but the problem, as everyone understands, is that so much chaff has to be removed to get to the digestible parts.
I am nto convinced that we can hold a rational debate either here on on one of their forums. I think it was TAM (maybe it was someone else) who said there were debate forums specifically to host debates. That might be good to look into and my offer still stands to debate any of their real scientists such as aquaboy or Reverend Jones...

[pomeroo]

I like the idea, and in various forms, it has been suggested before. I think it would be of value, but only if such debates were heavily moderated, so as to keep the replies to the facts...ie, it would be useless to allow all of us to pipe in when we want to (we have a tendency to do so).

TAM:)



We're probably on the same wavelength. I was thinking that we invite, say, Judy Woods or Steven Jones. She/he posts an opening statement that is critiqued by Mark, R. Mackey, Beachnut, and maybe one or two others. Then the fantasist responds. We can plug on to mutual exhaustion, or establish a set number of rounds. We want to avoid an Ace-Baker farce in which one side repeatedly ignores everything. There must be observable progress in the discussion.

[parky76]

How can you debate with people who use claims of "that could have been planted", "he could be lying", "she could be an agent", "that video could have been faked", to disregard evidence that doesn't fit their political agenda?

Debates only work when both sides can agree on sources for reliable info. The only thing that 9-11 deniars agree upon is that any evidence, any source, that supports the official story, is unreliable.

[~enigma~]

How can you debate with people who use claims of "that could have been planted", "he could be lying", "she could be an agent", "that video could have been faked", to disregard evidence that doesn't fit their political agenda?

Debates only work when both sides can agree on sources for reliable info. The only thing that 9-11 deniars agree upon is that any evidence, any source, that supports the official story, is unreliable.
That is a good question Parky. Whenever you show evidence to a truther the vast majority will react just like uncle Fester and say it was faked or planted. So how do you get through to someone like that...I really don't see how that's possible with someone fully imerrsed in woo.

[Totovader]

How can you debate with people who use claims of "that could have been planted", "he could be lying", "she could be an agent", "that video could have been faked", to disregard evidence that doesn't fit their political agenda?

Debates only work when both sides can agree on sources for reliable info. The only thing that 9-11 deniars agree upon is that any evidence, any source, that supports the official story, is unreliable.

You must first get them to admit that logic and reason are the foundation. If they do not- there is no point.

From there, you can ask them- ok, if you believe this evidence was planted, what would it take for me to change your mind on that?

Etc- it's certainly possible. Like Fetzer, however- when backed into a corner, they often leap for the exit sign.

[Totovader]

We're probably on the same wavelength. I was thinking that we invite, say, Judy Woods or Steven Jones. She/he posts an opening statement that is critiqued by Mark, R. Mackey, Beachnut, and maybe one or two others. Then the fantasist responds. We can plug on to mutual exhaustion, or establish a set number of rounds. We want to avoid an Ace-Baker farce in which one side repeatedly ignores everything. There must be observable progress in the discussion.

The best way to do that though is in a debate style forum (maybe even townhall style).

It would be FUN AS [RULE8] to get these conspiracists on a panel and be questioned by debunkers and skeptics, instead of just paraded in front of their usual fan club.

In a web forum, they will just be asked the same questions over and over- they will avoid them- and will only pick out certain pieces to answer.

Everyone would want a slice of Judy, et al- and they'd never be able to reasonably get past the sea of questions. You really can't control that- nor should you, really.

Instead I think your forum is perhaps the best way to attack these claims head on- although you're past the most difficult one to deal with already. Fetzer and Alex Jones both use that same diversionary technique to avoid the issues, Judy just gives that ugly smile, and Steven Jones may or may not be willing to do it- but it would be fun.

[T.A.M.]

Remember guys:

It is a debate. The goal is not to convince your opponent, but the audience. If one of the top truthers says evidence was "planted" or "fabricated" and leaves it at that, the audience will likely see through it...see it as an inability to deal with the subject in question.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

Remember guys:

It is a debate. The goal is not to convince your opponent, but the audience. If one of the top truthers says evidence was "planted" or "fabricated" and leaves it at that, the audience will likely see through it...see it as an inability to deal with the subject in question.

TAM:)
TAM, if they claim the evidence was planted that kind of turns the debate into a lecture (and a yelling match). So why go through the sham of calling it a debate?

[Totovader]

TAM, if they claim the evidence was planted that kind of turns the debate into a lecture (and a yelling match). So why go through the sham of calling it a debate?

And why just leave it at "we disagree".

Here's the way I see it- when you mix faith with reason, this contradiction always arises. If they believe the evidence was planted- that is an observation based on what presumably can only be facts (as far as they're concerned). If they actually only believe this because it's convenient to their theory (obviously always the case) then you have them, because their bias is painfully obvious. They arrive at their conclusion via faith- and any story will do because it's on even ground. If they claim CD even though there's no evidence whatsoever for CD- it very well may have been the reindeer with explosive antlers that Ron suggested. The evidence for both is equally non-existent.

If- however- they claim that this conclusion was arrived at because of evidence- yet they are unable to explain or debate that evidence, then you've got them, too. If they try- it's easy enough to counter.

Either way, conspiracists need to avoid the light at all costs. They burn far too easily.

[T.A.M.]

TAM, if they claim the evidence was planted that kind of turns the debate into a lecture (and a yelling match). So why go through the sham of calling it a debate?

Because a debate is an argument over the facts and details of a particular topic. If the truther decides to weakly default to "it was planted" it doesn't deminish the debate itself, but the argument of the debator, and the skill he has or in this case, has not.

IMO

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

And why just leave it at "we disagree".

Here's the way I see it- when you mix faith with reason, this contradiction always arises. If they believe the evidence was planted- that is an observation based on what presumably can only be facts (as far as they're concerned). If they actually only believe this because it's convenient to their theory (obviously always the case) then you have them, because their bias is painfully obvious. They arrive at their conclusion via faith- and any story will do because it's on even ground. If they claim CD even though there's no evidence whatsoever for CD- it very well may have been the reindeer with explosive antlers that Ron suggested. The evidence for both is equally non-existent.

If- however- they claim that this conclusion was arrived at because of evidence- yet they are unable to explain or debate that evidence, then you've got them, too. If they try- it's easy enough to counter.

Either way, conspiracists need to avoid the light at all costs. They burn far too easily.
So you are calling a debate exposing their lies then proceed with a lecture? As I said why call that a debate...call it a lecture :)

ETA - What did I say that gave you the idea I said leave it at "we disagree"?

[T.A.M.]

Examples of how "default" answers weaken a debator in the eyes of his audience.

Fetzer versus Roberts (Planted, fabricated)

Bermas versus Pop Mech. (Your wrong. Your wrong.)

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

Because a debate is an argument over the facts and details of a particular topic. If the truther decides to weakly default to "it was planted" it doesn't deminish the debate itself, but the argument of the debator, and the skill he has or in this case, has not.

IMO

TAM:)Sure ti does. The topic would then be a debate about the validity of the evidence. Where is the progress in a circular debate? If you want a debate both sides must be willing to agree on evidence, if they can't or won't, it isn't a debate. Debates are not to massage egos you know. They are not even for winning or losing but for making progress.

[T.A.M.]

Sure ti does. The topic would then be a debate about the validity of the evidence. Where is the progress in a circular debate? If you want a debate both sides must be willing to agree on evidence, if they can't or won't, it isn't a debate. Debates are not to massage egos you know. They are not even for winning or losing but for making progress.

perhaps a debate in the purest sense. So what of political debates? They are all about the rprocess, and how one makes the argument, and only secondary are the facts.

I know, political debates are not a great example, but you get my meaning.

I get your point about the debate devolving into arguing over the evidence validity, but a good debator, like Mark, when confronted with "it was planted", might simply wink at the camera, and say "sure it was" and then move on.

TAM:)

[Quad4_72]

You could attempt to undertake the project, but most likely it would be in vain. I doubt you will get a prominent twoofer to debate on here because facts can be checked so easily and everything they say can be examined in depth. They cannot move the goal posts as fast as they can in a verbal debate. They know this, and will most likely avoid coming here.

[~enigma~]

perhaps a debate in the purest sense. So what of political debates? They are all about the rprocess, and how one makes the argument, and only secondary are the facts.

I know, political debates are not a great example, but you get my meaning.

I get your point about the debate devolving into arguing over the evidence validity, but a good debator, like Mark, when confronted with "it was planted", might simply wink at the camera, and say "sure it was" and then move on.

TAM:)
TAM, I am the one high on Vicodin but you really should come back to the thread here. We were talking about a debate on a forum...last time I checked, there was no webcam feed here to wink at :)

[T.A.M.]

TAM, I am the one high on Vicodin but you really should come back to the thread here. We were talking about a debate on a forum...last time I checked, there was no webcam feed here to wink at :)

ya ya...lol. I was going off into debates in general...sorry. Consider me "pulled" back in.

Vicodin? Injured are we?

TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

We're probably on the same wavelength. I was thinking that we invite, say, Judy Woods or Steven Jones. She/he posts an opening statement that is critiqued by Mark, R. Mackey, Beachnut, and maybe one or two others. Then the fantasist responds. We can plug on to mutual exhaustion, or establish a set number of rounds. We want to avoid an Ace-Baker farce in which one side repeatedly ignores everything. There must be observable progress in the discussion.
Not a good idea, Ron. Wouldn't work. For one thing this would garner one helluva lot of resentment here, with your suggestion that only "certain" JREFers could respond. I'd butt in just on principle.

Lots of folks here are very very very effective in their responses and their expertise and their ability to logically reason on issues a la 9/11.

The word "debate" is not understood by conspiracists as we normal folks understand it. Therefore, you avoid debating them. It has no effect. Once in a great while, you might catch some kiddies off guard and inexperienced, as in the Hardfire debate with Bermas and Avery. But that's rare.

I still think the best idea is for you to host 9/11 Evidentiary Panels or some such entity. No twoofers. Somebody to play a bit of devil's advocate? Fine. But you'll get nowhere once twoofers are part of it. Get people who are effective and engaging as on-camera presenters - such as yourself and Mark Roberts - and do this thing professionally, as a series. It'd be something that could be held up, referenced, quoted. Never know where it might lead, too.

[pomeroo]

Not a good idea, Ron. Wouldn't work. For one thing this would garner one helluva lot of resentment here, with your suggestion that only "certain" JREFers could respond. I'd butt in just on principle.

Lots of folks here are very very very effective in their responses and their expertise and their ability to logically reason on issues a la 9/11.

The word "debate" is not understood by conspiracists as we normal folks understand it. Therefore, you avoid debating them. It has no effect. Once in a great while, you might catch some kiddies off guard and inexperienced, as in the Hardfire debate with Bermas and Avery. But that's rare.

I still think the best idea is for you to host 9/11 Evidentiary Panels or some such entity. No twoofers. Somebody to play a bit of devil's advocate? Fine. But you'll get nowhere once twoofers are part of it. Get people who are effective and engaging as on-camera presenters - such as yourself and Mark Roberts - and do this thing professionally, as a series. It'd be something that could be held up, referenced, quoted. Never know where it might lead, too.



Look, I understand that guys like you and me would be eager to butt in, but we could allow a Q & A session at the end of the debate. I'm open to suggestions.

[~enigma~]

ya ya...lol. I was going off into debates in general...sorry. Consider me "pulled" back in.

Vicodin? Injured are we?

TAM:)
You can say that...had surgery Monday but yes...I have a big ugly black and blue spot so I am injured...OUCH :)

[T.A.M.]

The suggestion, when brought up before, allowed people to offer themselves up to debate an opponent. The first to do so, could be that person. I personally have no problem with someone else being the debator. If multiple people wanted to debate a particular truther on a particular topic, than they could draw straws...lol

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

You can say that...had surgery Monday but yes...I have a big ugly black and blue spot so I am injured...OUCH :)

Vicodin is not a Canadian drug name, at least not one that I am familiar with. What is the GENERIC name for it (you know the big word on the Rx...lol)

TAM;)

[~enigma~]

Vicodin is not a Canadian drug name, at least not one that I am familiar with. What is the GENERIC name for it (you know the big word on the Rx...lol)

TAM;)
Hydrocodone....and no need to dumb things down. You do know what a PharmD is :)

[The Doc]

Ron,

I am currently renting a server with 80gb bandwidth every month. If you somehow need to do this outside of JREF, I could setup some forums and a website on which we could hold regular debates between debunkers and truthers. I'm more than happy to do so :)

It sounds like a great idea. Good thinking :)

[T.A.M.]

Hydrocodone....and no need to dumb things down. You do know what a PharmD is :)

I do actually, My cousin is a Pharmacist, and she is married to a PharmD.

I had no idea you were one.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

I do actually, My cousin is a Pharmacist, and she is married to a PharmD.

I had no idea you were one.

TAM:)
Nah...I just play one at work...

ETA - but I am still in pain...typing with both hands (actually one hand and a few fingers) :)

[The Great Hairy One]

I don't know if it would be worthwhile, Pomeroo, but it would be a hell of a lot of fun to watch, just to see the CTers squirm.

The reason I say "not worthwhile" would be the difficulty in getting any of the prominent CTers to post here on the JREF forums. I'm sure that the majority of the CT movement sees JREF as biased, and basically want nothing to do with the forums or their members, as they see these members as "the enemy".

The suggestion of The Doc is probably more tenable - setting up a "neutral" site, without the moderation of the JREF (which is seen by the CTers as "toxic"), might entice them to join in the debate. Also, you could limit the access levels of members so to restrict the posters to only those actually in the debate itself, other members could only read or review the threads/posts.

Please keep us informed if this idea progresses.

Cheers,
TGHO

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't know if it would be worthwhile, Pomeroo, but it would be a hell of a lot of fun to watch, just to see the CTers squirm.

The reason I say "not worthwhile" would be the difficulty in getting any of the prominent CTers to post here on the JREF forums. I'm sure that the majority of the CT movement sees JREF as biased, and basically want nothing to do with the forums or their members, as they see these members as "the enemy".

i agree, it would be nigh impossible to get truthers to debate anywhere they dont consider "independent, unbiased and impartial" which to them seems to mean "thinks 9/11 was an inside job"

[Juustin]

This is sort of unrelated, but perhaps it would be a fun idea. Someone with some editing skills should make a 9/11 Truth vs. 9/11 Truth debate video. Get a debate on tape with as many of the "big names" in the movement as possible, or even just videos of them lecturing on their version of what happened. Then edit into a giant debate with each other. Sort of what the Daily Show did with Gov. Bush debating President Bush.

I'm not suggesting it's done in a manner that suggests that they were actually debating one another live. I just think it would be an entertaining way to display that for all their "rock solid evidence", they can't seem to have any two of them come to the same conclusion using the same evidence.

[T.A.M.]

truther #1: No planes hit the towers
truther #2: Planes hit the towers
truther #1: Energy Beams brought down the towers
truther #2: thermite and other explosives brought down the towers
truther #1: did not
truther #2: did so.

TAM:)

[bje]

I think debates are of limited value since the main objective of the truthers is public exposure,to score points and, foremost, to leave all those "questions" on the table. (Fetzer's defense to his bashing on 911Blogger.com for appearing with the "enemy" on Ron's Hardfire was "I made dozens and dozens of points."

I think it would be better to invite those Deniers who are willing to address specific questions about a specific claim they make, WTC 7 being the most visible one.

Invite them, for instance, specifically to address a panel from JREF and demonstrate HOW it would be possible for WTC 7 to be brought down by controlled demolition from inception of the idea to execution on 9/11 with specifics including and especially the number of people who would necessarily need to know.

I doubt you would get any takers under those controlled (by JREF) conditions but that just emphasizes the point.