Calls for “debate” on subjects like vaccines aren’t really invitations to communicate with a large audience. Many reasons for this, one of which is Brandolini’s Law:
The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
The whole thing is a set-up.
It’s an asymmetric proposition.
The format they want doesn’t allow for the slow, methodical scientific processes needed to reach sound conclusions and refute misinformation.
At the same time, participation by scientists creates an environment where claims that mimic scientific rigor, acquire legitimacy.
On top of that it isn’t actually a debate. There’s no moderator agreed on by both parties, no standard for the dividing line between fact and opinion. Those are sort of essential for debate!
If folks asking for a debate really wanted to “get to the bottom of this stuff” they would go spend time with scientists doing the work.
People like Joe Rogan or RFK Jr could absolutely get that access if they really wanted it. They’d have to do some work to convince others it was in good faith, but they could do it.
It will take time and isn’t designed to get clicks, unfortunately. But they’d get real answers and could ask all the questions they want.
"Truth is defined by the weakest of us who must suffer through it."
SearingTruth
Do you think the right will ever wake up and realize that their representatives are more interested in their anger than their care?
@mcnees
One does not "debate" things like the existence of gravity or whether apples grow on trees.
"Debating" insane opinions only gives them credibility.
@MugsysRapSheet @mcnees Man, all this science is so confusing. Maybe I’ll just go with my gut!
Leeeeroy… nJenkinnnsss
Cipher Menial
Robert McNees
Jessica 
🇺🇦 🇵🇸 ✡️
Roadskater, Ph.D.
SearingTruth
Kevin Leecaster
Frank
Mickrob9777
MugsysRapSheet Blog ☑️
Sal De Gusto
RevJeber
Mike Babyak
Chris
Extinction (our fate)
JMcD