Debating twoofers

[anticonspiracy911]

This article is about debating pseudoscientists in general, but I think these thoughts could be applied towards debating twoofers.


http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/debating.html

[Gravy]

Phil Plait's a sensible guy.

[Quad4_72]

Don't debate them huh? Sounds easy enough. Eliminates the need to pull your own hair out too. I like it.

[anticonspiracy911]

Don't debate them huh? Sounds easy enough. Eliminates the need to pull your own hair out too. I like it.

I mean honestly we've destroyed their foundation. What else is there to do? Gravy has a library of debunking articles. Phil has it right when he says destroying the foundation of their argument will destroy the little details they throw out there which revolve around the foundation of their argument.

[Brainster]

As I've said consistently, debate them where there is an undecided audience. There's no sense in appearing on Jason Bermas' show; arguably there might be some on Alex Jones'. But if it's relatively mainstream like Thom Hartmann? They cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

[leftysergeant]

As I've said consistently, debate them where there is an undecided audience. There's no sense in appearing on Jason Bermas' show; arguably there might be some on Alex Jones'. But if it's relatively mainstream like Thom Hartmann? They cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

Were the twoofers just a bunch of religious whackjobs debating whether or not the Angel Moroni presented inscribed gold tablets to a religious reformer in Illinois, who here would give a rat's?

But if it is a bunch of people with an obvious political aggenda that coiuld include a violent coup d-etat, stop the presses. Pull back the curtain and show everyone the white nationalist, whackjob tax resister or militia organizer sitting there reading The Turner Diaries into the ear piece of the twoofer star dejour.

[snagswolf]

But if it is a bunch of people with an obvious political aggenda that coiuld include a violent coup d-etat, stop the presses. Pull back the curtain and show everyone the white nationalist, whackjob tax resister or militia organizer sitting there reading The Turner Diaries into the ear piece of the twoofer star dejour.
The only political agenda I see is the truthers overwhelmingly belonging to the Democrat Party and attempting to paint a Republican administration as criminal.

Zogby Poll, showing the breakdown of political affiliations of the truthers:

http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf

Official story: Dems 51.4%, Reps 75.0%
Let it happen: Dems 36.3%, Reps 15.5%
Made it happen: Dems 6.3%, Reps 3.7%

Executive branch should be investigated about 9/11: Dems 72.8%, Reps 24.7%
Investigate collapse of Building 7: Dems 70.4%, Reps 58.0%
New investigation to see if government was involved: Dems 49.9%, Reps 18.9%

[JamesB]

Coincidently I just finished reading Denying the Holocaust by Deborah Lipstadt and posted about it at SLC, even got a response from Dr. Lipstadt in the comments. In any case she discusses at length how she was invited to debate Holocaust Deniers, but she refused because she did not want to help give them a forum and the legitimacy of a debate. Even publishing a book on the subject was somewhat controversial, but she felt that the claims had caught on enough that this was the best way to fight it. I am not sure if that carries over 100% to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but it is definitely something to think about.

[BigAl]

The only political agenda I see is the truthers overwhelmingly belonging to the Democrat Party and attempting to paint a Republican administration as criminal.

Zogby Poll, showing the breakdown of political affiliations of the truthers:

http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf

Official story: Dems 51.4%, Reps 75.0%
Let it happen: Dems 36.3%, Reps 15.5%
Made it happen: Dems 6.3%, Reps 3.7%

Executive branch should be investigated about 9/11: Dems 72.8%, Reps 24.7%
Investigate collapse of Building 7: Dems 70.4%, Reps 58.0%
New investigation to see if government was involved: Dems 49.9%, Reps 18.9%

Isn't the margin of error about 3% and that means that we can say with some honest that the MIHOP number might be as low as 2% ?


As an active Democrat (worked on campaigns of 4 first-rate progressives and am about to do a 5th) hearing my younger friends spout Twoofer crap is what moved me from ignoring Twoofers to learning our talking points to counter them.

I live with the partisan slaps from conservative side of the anti-Twoofers (and would probably find them friends if we met) because I have my goals and priorities and picking these fights would be a digression and done as often as I would like, become boorish. IMO, the conservative side would be better served by dropping the cheap shots, adapting a bit of neutral camouflage and staying on-message, at least when dealing with the Twoofer public. (JREF is mild and polite compared others.)

In another time and place, I can cite primary sources about the alleged crimes and mistakes of the Bush administration, point by point, just as many as people here can for NIST and the rest of 9/11.

[Alferd_Packer]

Debating truthers is like wrestling with a pig. In the end you are both covered with slime and pig ****, and the pig likes it.

[slyjoe]

This article is about debating pseudoscientists in general, but I think these thoughts could be applied towards debating twoofers.


http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/debating.html

One thing I noticed was confusion between "debating" and "debunking". Well maybe not confusion, but both terms were used.

Regarding "debating", Shermer probably has it right - a "debate", especially a live one, is not conducive to examining evidence. It is more about who screams the loudest, as Shermer noted regarding debating creationists. Plus the fact that many "debaters", as we have seen here, throw out a million nits, move the goalposts, never answer questions, etc.

However, "debunking" in written form seems to have the potential to overcome the dishonest debating tactics of those in the truth movement. If you have the time and interest to debunk truthers, why not?

[Brainster]

I live with the partisan slaps from conservative side of the anti-Twoofers (and would probably find them friends if we met) because I have my goals and priorities and picking these fights would be a digression and done as often as I would like, become boorish. IMO, the conservative side would be better served by dropping the cheap shots, adapting a bit of neutral camouflage and staying on-message, at least when dealing with the Twoofer public. (JREF is mild and polite compared others.)

It's natural for conservative observers of the "Troofers" to chalk it up as another example of the nutty Left. But it's the first half of that equation, the "nutty" part, that is more relevant. Nobody would describe Alex Jones as a Leftist.

[snagswolf]

Isn't the margin of error about 3% and that means that we can say with some honest that the MIHOP number might be as low as 2% ?
Actually, 6.3 - 3 = 3.3, not 2. And does that mean we can honestly say that the MIHOP number might be as high as 9.3?

As an active Democrat (worked on campaigns of 4 first-rate progressives and am about to do a 5th) hearing my younger friends spout Twoofer crap is what moved me from ignoring Twoofers to learning our talking points to counter them.

I live with the partisan slaps from conservative side of the anti-Twoofers (and would probably find them friends if we met) because I have my goals and priorities and picking these fights would be a digression and done as often as I would like, become boorish. IMO, the conservative side would be better served by dropping the cheap shots, adapting a bit of neutral camouflage and staying on-message, at least when dealing with the Twoofer public. (JREF is mild and polite compared others.)
My post was in response to someone on the Left attempting to pin the truth movement on the extreme Right.

Are you saying you didn't have any problem with that 'cheap shot'?

In another time and place, I can cite primary sources about the alleged crimes and mistakes of the Bush administration, point by point, just as many as people here can for NIST and the rest of 9/11.
'Alleged' being the key word in that sentence.

[snagswolf]

It's natural for conservative observers of the "Troofers" to chalk it up as another example of the nutty Left. But it's the first half of that equation, the "nutty" part, that is more relevant. Nobody would describe Alex Jones as a Leftist.
Strawman argument. I did nothing of the sort.

I merely responded with facts displaying who the truthers really are, in response to someone attempting to paint them as right-wing nutjobs.

[JamesB]

Isn't the margin of error about 3% and that means that we can say with some honest that the MIHOP number might be as low as 2% ?




Well technically speaking a margin of error isn't really a margin of error, but just the percentage which would be two confidence intervals away from the mean. So in this case if the the poll 4.6% and the CI is 3, the actual number will be between 1.6% and 7.6% 95% of the time. Theoretically it could be higher or lower though.

[anticonspiracy911]

One thing I noticed was confusion between "debating" and "debunking". Well maybe not confusion, but both terms were used.

Regarding "debating", Shermer probably has it right - a "debate", especially a live one, is not conducive to examining evidence. It is more about who screams the loudest, as Shermer noted regarding debating creationists. Plus the fact that many "debaters", as we have seen here, throw out a million nits, move the goalposts, never answer questions, etc.

However, "debunking" in written form seems to have the potential to overcome the dishonest debating tactics of those in the truth movement. If you have the time and interest to debunk truthers, why not?

I agree to an extent. Haven't we educated the public about 9/11? Not only has Gravy been an educator, but a lot of other scientists have written their papers on 9/11 as well. Any claim a twoofer makes will be debunked in one of those papers. Just personally speaking I think debating them any further is a waste of time. Their little details they develop all revolve around the same core that's been debunked over and over again. It's a distraction to be debating their silly little details any further. A discussion about the war in Iraq is a better topic of discussion than constantly debating these reality deniers. (I realize this is a conspiracy subforum. I'm not saying to start threads about the war in Iraq on this subforum. It was merely stating my point of view about this.)