If creationists have taught me anything, it's that debates 1) are largely won by rhetorical style, not correctness of the underlying concepts, and 2) promote th

If creationists have taught me anything, it's that debates 1) are largely won by rhetorical style, not correctness of the underlying concepts, and 2) promote the impression that both viewpoints have roughly equal validity. https://web.archive.org/web/20220201083303/https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/debate-me-bro-debate-challenges-by-science-deniers-in-the-age-of-covid-19/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220201083303/https://scienceba... > it’s such a classic tactic of science deniers to demand a “debate” and then to accuse science advocates of cowardice if they decline. ... > Common “live public debate” formats favor science deniers because they are not bound by science or even the truth. They are free to Gish gallop to their heart’s content; that is, to “baffle them with a torrent of BS” that includes obscure studies, bad studies, studies that don’t support their points, and even irrelevant information that superficially to nonexperts appears to support their arguments. Unless a scientist or science communicator is not only very skilled at dealing with this technique but also very familiar with the deep well of studies ranging from the highly dubious to the good studies misrepresented by the science denier, it is easy to fall into the trap of trying to swat down each gallop in turn and have no time left to make an argument for science. Such “debates” also value glibness, rhetorical skill, and the debater’s charisma far more than facts, logic, reason, and science. ... > “live public debates” are meant for one thing and one thing only: To sway public opinion to a viewpoint not supported by science, in the process elevating pseudoscience or the unproven to the same plane as the scientific consensus as a scientifically viable “alternative”.