Chemtrail debate challenge.

Mick West

Staff member
This is the "Hard Proof" he has for "chemtrails".

I think with that in his arsenal, he'd have a hard time in debate.

I could do this online in a similar fashion to his face-to-face debate.

Based on the wall of links and photos there (he even has a couple of my photos, lacking the explanations), it seems he favors the Gish Gallop method of debating. Such debates are unproductive, as they are not at all focussed, they simply allow the bunk promoter to spew out a huge list of bunk, of which the skeptic will only have enough time to refute one or two points, and to the believer it will seem like the bunk promoter has "won" as he made more points.

In written form, a Gish Gallop is most commonly observed as a long list of supposed facts or reasons, as a pamphlet or green ink web page, with a title that proudly boasts the number of reasons involved. To truly qualify as a Gish Gallop, this number must be at least 50 — a "top 10" list isn't really what this is about — and many truly epic examples hit triple figures. The individual points must also be fairly terse; often to the point where, individually, each point is easy to refute because it simply proves nothing. But combined, a Gish Gallop might run into the same length as a multi-page essay running into thousands of words. This provides insight into the motives of the Gish Galloper, as there seems to be some conflict between the scale of the Gallop and the shortness of the individual points. If brevity and ease-of-understanding was the aim (as suggested by short, easy-to-digest points) then they would be better off with a smaller number of points, like "the best five reasons" or "the top ten arguments." These not only stick in the mind of a reader, but also form a core argument that can be expanded on. If, on the other hand, a coherent and thorough argument was the intention (as suggested by the excessive word count), then the purpose would be best served by using the thousands of words expended in the Gallop to make a full essay, with points expanded and elaborated on to ensure they were thoroughly argued. By taking a curious middle ground, a Gish Gallop tries to create the illusion of authority and an incredible weight of evidence by sheer quantity alone, without any quality to back it up. To supporters, the illusion works, but those who disagree with the Galloper's points often find the amount of repetitive assertions and non-explanations offered tedious to deal with.
Content from External Source

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
I could deal with all of those in the 90 minutes he proposes each debater would have, as well as showing some real evidence against the idea of chemtrails.

He has 8 main thrusts, each of which have significant logical and factual errors. 5-7 minutes each would debunk them and introduce most of the real evidence against chemtrails at the same time. That leaves more than 1/2 hour to present the detailed evidence against chemtrails which the average chemtrail believer including Jeff, has no clue about because they isolate themselves and only know what they've been told, and which is really the most devastating to the hoax.

You can see, though, that he places so many conditions on the debate that he is really only interested in working on an elected official who he assumes would not be prepared.

The key to avoiding the tedium is to distill the opponents arguments down then kill them off.

There is no need to fear these people. We've seen all their arguments before, they have purposely stayed away from ours. We see it daily and how easily they are dispatched. Yes, we might not convince them personally, but what we offer is far better than anything they have come out with, which is why all their leaders shy away. They know.

Nessa Celery

New Member
I see a potential stumbling block.

"Then publically debate me according to my rules."

"Audience cheering, booing etc. shall be discouraged by both debators at the beginning & end of each 5 minute turn at the microphone.
Any person becoming boiserous and interrupting the flow of time will be ejected. Security shall be deemed only by me. This will be a civil event not a Jerry Springer Show. And if you or any of your guest is out of the line with the rules you shall be ejected."