anyone interested in a debunker v debunker debate?

[defaultdotxbe]

i was thinking, sicne the quality of debate with CTers is dismal at best, and most debunkers are more familiar with CT arguments than the average CTer we should have some debates just for fun, with one debunker taking the CT side and the other the debunking side, perhaps switching off after a certain number of questions/rebuttals

thoughts?

[Undesired Walrus]

i was thinking, sicne

It's spelt since not sicne

There, I did round 1!:) That was easy!

[Unsecured Coins]

i'm for it

[ConspiRaider]

I can play "stupid" very convincingly. Some say too convincingly. I'm in.

[bonavada]

and me
im fed up at this debunking lark. its too easy. i have all teh credentialisations.

BV

[JimBenArm]

It was an obvious CD! Look at how it fell!
Dustification? Planes? We don't need no stinkin' planes!
It was on the North side of the Citgo! North! It was!
The plane would have bounced off the towers and fell unharmed to the ground. Don't you have any common sense?
Quit using your left brain, fool!


How'd I do?

[Gravy]

thoughts?

1) You have way too much time on your hands.
2) Huh?
3) You have way too much time on your hands.
4) Say what?
5) Sorry, I'm busy with a couple of projects that will bring me more pleasure: burning holes through my toenails with a soldering iron, and building a fire ant nest around my toilet.

[ConspiRaider]

1) You have way too much time on your hands.
2) Huh?
3) You have way too much time on your hands.
4) Say what?
5) Sorry, I'm busy with a couple of projects that will bring me more pleasure: burning holes through my toenails with a soldering iron, and building a fire ant nest around my toilet.
I think we've identified our sheeple.

[Stellafane]

Sure, in fact I've always believed this could be a good thought exercise. The only downside might be if a debunker comes up with an argument so cogent that real CTers might co-opt it to mislead fence sitters (if any still exist).

[8den]

I can play "stupid" very convincingly. Some say too convincingly. I'm in.

Honestly guys, we're getting like the wild bunch here. Frankly the fake conspiracy theorist would just engage in dishonest tactics, switching the subject and avoiding the question, and frankly would be used by conspiracy theorists as prove we "avoided the hard questions" (when we talked and about XYand Z but missed V, which is said by Cters to prove we're avoiding the argumens.

Guys there aren't just CT and non CT forums out there, there are ordinary and decent forums out there were truthers spout their BS. For example in January The Architect, popped onto after my request, and literally glasgow kissed a particularly obnoxious truther, to the degree that if the architect lurks on this forum and pops up when the truther posts, the truther goes to ground. The Architect was able to come in and challenge the truthers claims about building collapse. And man did he do so.

Rather than navel gazing, we should not engage in pointless debates between ourselves, we should view this forum as what it is, a depot of knowledge about 911. We should challenge truthers who poster here yes, but we should go back to the other forums we post on, and know that if a troofer comes and posts on a thread, I have repository of knowledge to help me challenge em, not only that I have posters who's background can help support my case.

rather than debate each other, go out, find a forum that truthers are bombarding with stupid, and challenge them, and utilise the resources of this forum.

I'll give you an example, there is an Irish web forum called boards.ie and it has a subforum on conspiracy theories. As a couple of conspiracy theorists began spamming the forum with their nonsense, it was coraled into this new forum. We got loose change we got all this nonsense. Then a few posters ranging from civil engineers, to people trained in logic, to myself challenged the conspiracy theorists, and they ran. Having their theories challenged in methodical manner ruined them. Most of the conspiracy theorists ran away, when challenged. A few have remained and have accused people of engaging in rational polite debate of being disinfo agents, or trying to suppress debate.

Y'know what those people I don't care for, I don't stress over, anyone so paranoid that they think the government has paid for someone to disagree with , is hopelessly lost. I care for the people they try to reach. I want to make the people listening to conspiracy nonsense hear an alternative version. Its too easy to be suckered in.

Thats why I don't think we should debate each other, we should instead find agnostic forums where truthers hold court and challenge them. We're not trying to change the minds of dogmatic idiots just to speak to the people they try to recruit.

[8den]

1) You have way too much time on your hands.
2) Huh?
3) You have way too much time on your hands.
4) Say what?
5) Sorry, I'm busy with a couple of projects that will bring me more pleasure: burning holes through my toenails with a soldering iron, and building a fire ant nest around my toilet.

Again I have to agree, heres a man who's donn'd the blue face pain and "gwan to pick a fight" with the truthers at ground zero.

Seriously dtxbe do we really need to argue devils adovcate with this idiots?

[ConspiRaider]

Rather than navel gazing, we should not engage in pointless debates between ourselves, we should view this forum as what it is, a depot of knowledge about 911. We should challenge truthers who poster here yes, but we should go back to the other forums we post on, and know that if a troofer comes and posts on a thread, I have repository of knowledge to help me challenge em, not only that I have posters who's background can help support my case.

rather than debate each other, go out, find a forum that truthers are bombarding with stupid, and challenge them, and utilise the resources of this forum.

I don't think I can completely give up navel gazing:
http://www.bartcop.com/alba.htm

But seriously I do think you are dead on target. And I even have a suggested forum, the one I haunted for more than a year, mostly in the 9/11 woo threads. They are thick over there, at the Randi Rhodes Message Board. Randi Rhodes is a cool liberal radio talk show host out of NYC and she kind of walks the fence on 9/11 woo. But a lot of her forum posters are dyed-in-the-wool twoofers. There are a couple of heroes there who battle as best they can, but they sure could use your help. I did more than 3,500 posts, then finally left for good after a death threat. It's a rat's nest - begging for youse guys as exterminators.
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showforum=127

[pomeroo]

I think we've identified our sheeple.


A) Hey, you have pencils in your ears!

B) What?

A) I said, you have pencils in your ears.

B) Huh?

A) YOU HAVE PENCILS IN YOUR EARS!

B) I can't hear you: I have pencils in my ears.

[Quad4_72]

Honestly guys, we're getting like the wild bunch here. Frankly the fake conspiracy theorist would just engage in dishonest tactics, switching the subject and avoiding the question, and frankly would be used by conspiracy theorists as prove we "avoided the hard questions" (when we talked and about XYand Z but missed V, which is said by Cters to prove we're avoiding the argumens.

Guys there aren't just CT and non CT forums out there, there are ordinary and decent forums out there were truthers spout their BS. For example in January The Architect, popped onto after my request, and literally glasgow kissed a particularly obnoxious truther, to the degree that if the architect lurks on this forum and pops up when the truther posts, the truther goes to ground. The Architect was able to come in and challenge the truthers claims about building collapse. And man did he do so.

Rather than navel gazing, we should not engage in pointless debates between ourselves, we should view this forum as what it is, a depot of knowledge about 911. We should challenge truthers who poster here yes, but we should go back to the other forums we post on, and know that if a troofer comes and posts on a thread, I have repository of knowledge to help me challenge em, not only that I have posters who's background can help support my case.

rather than debate each other, go out, find a forum that truthers are bombarding with stupid, and challenge them, and utilise the resources of this forum.

I'll give you an example, there is an Irish web forum called boards.ie and it has a subforum on conspiracy theories. As a couple of conspiracy theorists began spamming the forum with their nonsense, it was coraled into this new forum. We got loose change we got all this nonsense. Then a few posters ranging from civil engineers, to people trained in logic, to myself challenged the conspiracy theorists, and they ran. Having their theories challenged in methodical manner ruined them. Most of the conspiracy theorists ran away, when challenged. A few have remained and have accused people of engaging in rational polite debate of being disinfo agents, or trying to suppress debate.

Y'know what those people I don't care for, I don't stress over, anyone so paranoid that they think the government has paid for someone to disagree with , is hopelessly lost. I care for the people they try to reach. I want to make the people listening to conspiracy nonsense hear an alternative version. Its too easy to be suckered in.

Thats why I don't think we should debate each other, we should instead find agnostic forums where truthers hold court and challenge them. We're not trying to change the minds of dogmatic idiots just to speak to the people they try to recruit.

I see we have a confirmed NWO agent amongst us...OMG INSIDE JOB

[ConspiRaider]

A) Hey, you have pencils in your ears!
B) What?
A) I said, you have pencils in your ears.
B) Huh?
A) YOU HAVE PENCILS IN YOUR EARS!
B) I can't hear you: I have pencils in my ears.
Ah HAH!!! So then THIS is a disputation!!!11one!!11

Now if I can figure out what a comminution is I'll be ready to take on ALL OCT'ers!!!111!!1eleventy!!111!

[Wowbagger]

Hey!! I was thinking about something along those lines for my next film project! (After the Ignoranti film is long completed.)

[Mr. Skinny]

i'm for it
Typical OCT response.

I can play "stupid" very convincingly. Some say too convincingly. I'm in.
I knew this some time ago. :D


Seriously though, default, your suggestion is sorta JREF/OCT mental masturbation. Fer cryin' out loud, some people, e.g. chippy are buring out fighting actual CT's. I don't think we need any "made up" debates, thank you so very much!

[hellaeon]

it might be better in the humour section since fensitters wont know what the deal is.

[PhantomWolf]

Perhaps instead of a debate, an idea similar to ones that the group of Apollo supporters tried a while back.

Having a number of engineers and orbital mechanics in the group we set out to do two things.

1) If Apollo was really faked, how could it have been done?
2) If I was going to hoax Apollo, how would I have done it?

here we could investigate the following two questions:

1) If 9/11 really was an Inside job, how could it have been done?

and

2) If I, as the government, was going to set up 9/11, how would I have done it?

Of course to do this we'd have to come up with a consistant theory on what was supposed to have happened on 9/11. That at least is one advantage of Apollo over 9/11. Most HB's have an idea of what was supposed to have happened (well if you ignore that the crews may or may not have been launched into space, and that the moon rocks may have been lunar meteorites, retrieved by unmanned probes or just manufactured in NASA's cemarics radiation ovens.)

[defaultdotxbe]

Seriously though, default, your suggestion is sorta JREF/OCT mental masturbation. Fer cryin' out loud, some people, e.g. chippy are buring out fighting actual CT's. I don't think we need any "made up" debates, thank you so very much!
kinda like a soldier who comes back from iraq and the first thing he does is play SOCOM?

i use that analogy because i know several soldiers who did that, lol

ah well, maybe ill just find my sitchin books and head over to general skepticism

[PhantomWolf]

ah well, maybe ill just find my sitchin books and head over to general skepticism

Don't forget to take your carpets too. (insider joke for the BAUT's here;))

[Kent1]

There's actually a lot to debate. I've seen various non CT viewpoints and answers on these topics.

Were the hijackers good pilots or bad?
How the towers fell during the collapse?
(Top down vs wedging vs falling out of footprint or combination)
How long did it take for the collapses?
Can a fire melt steel before, after the collapse, or not at all?
What is the yellow metal coming out of the towers?
Is Greenings paper (oxygen cylinders) on the subject plausible?
Is aluminum a strong yellow in daylight conditions?
Or is it something else?
Is this steel or glass?
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/molten_steel.jpg

[3bodyproblem]

1) You have way too much time on your hands.
2) Huh?
3) You have way too much time on your hands.
4) Say what?
5) Sorry, I'm busy with a couple of projects that will bring me more pleasure: burning holes through my toenails with a soldering iron, and building a fire ant nest around my toilet.

This is totally cynical. You should be able to argue both sides with equal conviction.

[Gravy]

You should be able to argue both sides with equal conviction.Really? Please explain.

[Brainster]

I can see the argument that it might be valuable to expose the lacunas out there that we haven't quite covered, but I certainly could not contribute to the CT side regardless. Plus there is the Stockholm Syndrome to consider.

[uk_dave]

For the entertainment value it would be an amusing debate. But it wouldn't change any minds because the 'truthers' will always fall back on the 'Well I would have mentioned this....."

You know, like how they gave their full and unreserved admiration to the LTW boys after their debate with Gravy and Ron... :D

[MortFurd]

I can see the argument that it might be valuable to expose the lacunas out there that we haven't quite covered, but I certainly could not contribute to the CT side regardless. Plus there is the Stockholm Syndrome to consider.

That and brain damage from trying to make a normal brain switch over to CT pretzel logic mode.

[3bodyproblem]

Really? Please explain.

The cynical part or the equal conviction part?

I think the cynical part is derived from the self mutilation line.

The equal conviction part comes from the fact that there is no debate without the understanding of both sides. Heaven and Hell if you will.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Or, rather than a debate, take one of their ideas and walk it through the scientific process, define what would support it, what would take away support, etc

[Gravy]

The cynical part or the equal conviction part?

I think the cynical part is derived from the self mutilation line.

The equal conviction part comes from the fact that there is no debate without the understanding of both sides. Heaven and Hell if you will.I'm fine with there not being a debate. To me this isn't an intellectual game. I think you'll find that there are few people who've spent more time examining the conspiracist claims than I have.

The line I asked about from your post was this:

You should be able to argue both sides with equal conviction.Because I am a rational person, I am unable to argue the side that's not supported by evidence with the same conviction as the side that's supported by a mountain of evidence.

[uk_dave]

Perhaps 3bodyproblem means that you should be able to understand the opposing viewpoint, though in the case of the 'truthers' though we may understand only too well their motives, understanding the foundation of their belief system is rather more tricky.

[3bodyproblem]

Yes. You should be able to understand. Lawyers do this, they are required to. Certainly there are no lawyers if we applied rationality to everything? And this is based in the law, much more defined than the events concerning 9/11 don't you agree?

[Gravy]

Yes. You should be able to understand. Lawyers do this, they are required to. Certainly there are no lawyers if we applied rationality to everything? And this is based in the law, much more defined than the events concerning 9/11 don't you agree?No, I don't agree at all. Do you believe that there is an equal amount of evidence to support 9/11 conspiracist claims and the official version?

[ConspiRaider]

Yes. You should be able to understand. Lawyers do this, they are required to. Certainly there are no lawyers if we applied rationality to everything? And this is based in the law, much more defined than the events concerning 9/11 don't you agree?
Not a good example.

Prosecutors are lawyers. District attorneys and deputy district attorneys are lawyers. Most judges got into the business as lawyers.

You're referring to criminal defense lawyers and litigation lawyers, most likely. Regarding criminal defense lawyers, they know their clients are guilty. In most cases, they're dealing. Trying to get charges dropped or reduced, trying to avoid trial. They can do that in clear conscience because they know the client is guilty. If they must go to trial - then it is their charge, as officers of the court, to provide a vigorous defense. Even though they know the client is guilty.

Litigation: Typically lawyers will gravitate towards basic specialties and work within that playing field. Such as personal injury.

There really isn't the freewheeling switching of sides in the legal profession that you indicate, in my opinion.

[3bodyproblem]

No, I don't agree at all. Do you believe that there is an equal amount of evidence to support 9/11 conspiracist claims and the official version?

No, I don't. The OT debater has a decided advantage. It's nice to have evidence to support you when you are debating.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I understand where 3bodyproblem is coming from on this. It is beneficial to set aside your personal beliefs, build the strongest case possible for your opposition, then figure out how to destroy it.

[3bodyproblem]

I understand where 3bodyproblem is coming from on this. It is beneficial to set aside your personal beliefs, build the strongest case possible for your opposition, then figure out how to destroy it.

Yah. Maybe conviction is the wrong word to use, there is a personal connotation associated with "conviction". But anticipating the counter argument is essential in debate.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yah. Maybe conviction is the wrong word to use, there is a personal connotation associated with "conviction". But anticipating the counter argument is essential in debate.
I intentionally put myself into that situation in Argumentation class, by taking the role of defending a hypothetical anti-gun measure. It forced me to truly understand my RL opponents tactics and source material.

[Gravy]

Yah. Maybe conviction is the wrong word to use, there is a personal connotation associated with "conviction". But anticipating the counter argument is essential in debate.Yes. A conviction is a strongly-held belief: pretty much the opposite of adopting a position for the sake of argument. Arkan does a good job of describing the approach of a well-prepared debater.

[PhantomWolf]

It'd be interesting to see a CT trying to argue the "offical story." Mainly because they never seem to be able to get any of it right under normal circumstances so I doubt that would change much.

[Travis]

I intentionally put myself into that situation in Argumentation class, by taking the role of defending a hypothetical anti-gun measure. It forced me to truly understand my RL opponents tactics and source material.

I had to do that in an argumentation class once too. I had to defend the idea of keeping marijuana illegal. I was set up against a friend who argued for making it legal. Sad thing is that according to the class (who graded us) I won the debate arguing against my own convictions.

It was a valuable learning experience.

[MortFurd]

There's a difference between two debaters facing off who have different views of the same facts, and a rational person squaring off against someone who is bat guano crazy.

Given facts, you can present an argument for or against a particular interpretation - whether you personally happen to agree with that outcome or not. Good debaters can switch sides in that situation, and present good arguments.

That's a far different thing from what you get with CTs. Their "facts" are as likely to pulled out thin air as they are to be distortions of reality - only rarely do CTs present anything like an argument based on facts.

If you try to present a rational argument for the CTs, you'll find yourself in the position of trying to drive nails with an imaginary hammer. You might go through the motions, but you won't get far.

If you try to argue in CT manner, things get tricky. Do you try to present just one line of CT "thought" or do you try to represent them all? Say, rolling a dice every five posts and switching between space beams, missiles at ground zero, controlled demolition, and thermate.

Whoever you put in the place of Devil's Advocate is going to have a heck of a job trying to present a rational argument for a bunch of irrational crap.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I had to do that in an argumentation class once too. I had to defend the idea of keeping marijuana illegal. I was set up against a friend who argued for making it legal. Sad thing is that according to the class (who graded us) I won the debate arguing against my own convictions.

It was a valuable learning experience.
I too won, to my chagrin. I did so by taking a non-standard approach. My opponent was arguing at the ineffectiveness of the current "law". I conceded that point and then went on to argue that it was because the current law was not sufficiently stringent and although the current law was flawed this should be seen as a reason to enact a more strict law and not as a reason to repeal the current one.

[Travis]

I too won, to my chagrin. I did so by taking a non-standard approach. My opponent was arguing at the ineffectiveness of the current "law". I conceded that point and then went on to argue that it was because the current law was not sufficiently stringent and although the current law was flawed this should be seen as a reason to enact a more strict law and not as a reason to repeal the current one.

That's pretty good tactic for that even though I, like you, personally disagree with it. I basically took the approach of arguing the Pandora's box effect. "Who knows what would happen if it were legal?" type of arguments. Frankly I thought my angle was weak and open to attack but my opponent made them mistake of arguing for legalization from a purely cost savings financial standpoint. I rebutted with a report on the increased expenditures in health care needed in some countries after selective legalization. This was bogus as it applied to heroin legalization and not marijuana but my opponent never challenged it and that seemed to carry the day.

All in all it was a great experience and I often wish Truthers would apply some objective analysis to their arguments before treading them out to annoy us.