The Doc
4th May 2007, 01:12 AM
Conspiracy theorists and debunkers alike! I come to you with a question.
Both sides of this debate wish to have their voices heard, and their points understood. However, this can be hard to do on a public web forum or on a public street. The best way he have of hosting debates right now is Harfire, which is a program where debunkers and conspiracy theorists can discuss on camera. Obviously though, that is not convenient for everybody due to geography, finance etc.
Myself and Ron Wieck have a possible solution to this problem, so prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists could possibly have debates with prominent 9/11 debunkers without the need for travel etc.
So I have a question.
Would you ever participate in a neutrally moderated debate online using a set of rules and conditions appropriate to each debate?
This applies to both sides of the debate.
We could setup debates between two people regarding a certain topic(s). The site moderators would not edit posts, force opinions or do anything other than provide a neutral assistance service. This includes setting up debates, providing online assistance to debaters using the forum etc.
I am currently working on a prototype, but would like to know if the members here would participate if asked. I can imagine the "superdebunkers" here are confident enough to enter in debate, and I would hope that a portion of "super conspiracy theorists" would be as well. We would like to have "Major Debates" and "Minor Debates".
eg. These are just examples and are not planned events.
Major
Pat from SLC (negative) vs. Kevin Barrett (affirmative) : WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down in controlled demolitions using ordinance.
Mark Roberts (negative) vs. Kevin Ryan (affirmative) : WTC7 was a controlled demolution
Minor
JREF member vs. LC member : Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon
Etc. Etc. (You get the idea :p)
Let me know your thoughts!
Thanks
Doc.
PS. I am aware it will be hard to get conspiracy theorists to agree to a debate of any kind :)
Both sides of this debate wish to have their voices heard, and their points understood. However, this can be hard to do on a public web forum or on a public street. The best way he have of hosting debates right now is Harfire, which is a program where debunkers and conspiracy theorists can discuss on camera. Obviously though, that is not convenient for everybody due to geography, finance etc.
Myself and Ron Wieck have a possible solution to this problem, so prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists could possibly have debates with prominent 9/11 debunkers without the need for travel etc.
So I have a question.
Would you ever participate in a neutrally moderated debate online using a set of rules and conditions appropriate to each debate?
This applies to both sides of the debate.
We could setup debates between two people regarding a certain topic(s). The site moderators would not edit posts, force opinions or do anything other than provide a neutral assistance service. This includes setting up debates, providing online assistance to debaters using the forum etc.
I am currently working on a prototype, but would like to know if the members here would participate if asked. I can imagine the "superdebunkers" here are confident enough to enter in debate, and I would hope that a portion of "super conspiracy theorists" would be as well. We would like to have "Major Debates" and "Minor Debates".
eg. These are just examples and are not planned events.
Major
Pat from SLC (negative) vs. Kevin Barrett (affirmative) : WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down in controlled demolitions using ordinance.
Mark Roberts (negative) vs. Kevin Ryan (affirmative) : WTC7 was a controlled demolution
Minor
JREF member vs. LC member : Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon
Etc. Etc. (You get the idea :p)
Let me know your thoughts!
Thanks
Doc.
PS. I am aware it will be hard to get conspiracy theorists to agree to a debate of any kind :)