We'd love to have a debate
So far, nobody prominent wants to debate us in a recorded, fair, moderated debate. But we put together the rules just in case. The rules are designed for a lively discussion.
We aren’t holding our breath here that anyone will accept our offer to debate our team of experts despite the fact that there are a lot of legitimate issues that need to be clarified (such as the fact check topics here and the debate topics here).
TrialSiteNews challenged the pro-vax advocates to debate us on September 28 and as now, 2 months later, there were no takers. Zero. Zip. Nada. Even reach out by TrialSiteNews to the drug companies was unsuccessful in getting a response. They refused to defend their own product.
Here are the rules we’ve put together to ensure a very lively debate that efficiently uses the time available. We are open to any suggestions to improve the rules.
Rules of engagement
3 hour debate proposed. Modified by mutual consent.
Debate is on Zoom. It will be recorded and all participants will get a copy.
The only people on the zoom call will be the two moderators and the team members.
Each side will appoint a moderator. The moderators are there just to enforce the rules.
Permission is given by all participants to re-use and repurpose the video for any purpose.
Control is given to each side for 3 minutes at a time. That side “has the floor” and can talk and/or ask the other side questions, interrupt the person, etc. This is how it works in a Congressional hearing where Members can ask questions of the witness and can interrupt the witness at any time. The side in control can assign the “floor” to a single team member to use or control may be shared among multiple team members. There is no limit to the topics covered. We suggest one questioner and one topic for each slot, but that is just a recommendation.
We are happy to negotiate a different time limit for each side per question.
Questions are not shown to the other side in advance so you’ll need to think on your feet.
Teams can have up to 12 people on each side inside the debate room. This provides complete coverage on all topic areas, yet keeps the number of participants manageable.
Teams must be populated with actual real people with real names and verifiable identity. All must be on video. No disguises, no altering voices, no hiding of identities. We are not here to play games.
Teams will disclose the names of the participants on their side at least 24 hours prior to the debate.
The team captains will agree on a mutually agreeable date/time for the debate which shall be set at least 1 week before the debate time.
A live Coin flip decides who starts.
Rule option #2
We are also happy with a non moderated debate where each side speaks for a maximum of 3 minutes at a time and it goes back and forth between the sides for 3 hours.
Breaking rules more than 3 times excludes you from the rest of debate.
No ad hominem attacks.
Team members must keep their remarks focused on answering the question from the other side. You cannot change the topic.
What’s in it for both sides
Address BOTH misinformation and vaccine hesitancy in a single debate. Both are key objectives of each side.
The debate rules are completely symmetrical. No side has any advantage.
I agree with what Gin says.. at least try to find some kind of debate format that gets the points out and makes it easy to digest. I was reading through what GVC said and points that were made.. honestly it's hard keeping track. I'm not sure people want to dig through the rebuttals and all the studies to get straight to the points.
Why not have a virtual debate with their pre-canned answers that you then refute? It would take a lot of editing but we know what they’re going to say already, so it’s more important that your message gets out. To make it real, you must not take anything out of context so it really relates to the subject matter being discussed. You could debate a whole lot of people that way. I think it would get a lot of attention. You could quote or take the footage put a date on it so we know exactly when they said it. As long as this is for literary and scientific purposes, which it is, you would be allowed to use their footage under the fair use laws of the copyright act.