I've watched about 40 minutes of that debate -- does it improve at all? The pro side seemed content to provide compelling anecdotes almost exclusively. The con

I've watched about 40 minutes of that debate -- does it improve at all? The pro side seemed content to provide compelling anecdotes almost exclusively. The con side was also presenting anecdotes, but Gladwell at least made the crucial point that the mainstream media at least has a process for discovering and reporting the truth. The "both sides" game from the pro team was excruciating. As an aside, even when it comes to the anecdotes, Matt Taibbi was incredibly disingenuous about the one thing I fact-checked: his reporting on ivermectin. Sure, he might not have said "everyone should take ivermectin." But in the very first interview I hit with him about it his statements can be summarized as: "Ivermectin is a miracle drug for treating parasites." -- this sets up a kind of expert opinion fallacy: if Ivermectin is so good at fighting parasites, and viruses are sort of like parasites, right? So Ivermectin might be good for Covid. Then he says, "Some studies have given weak evidence supporting the use of Ivermectin for Covid." This elides so much about those early studies. Then he says, "And no one can talk about it [those positive studies]." It boils down to "tell me you think Ivermectin is good for Covid without saying the words 'Ivermectin is good for Covid'" and it makes me doubt anything Taibbi says. And the fact that he can have said that and then claim that he never supported Ivermectin tells me he will lie to prove a point.