Debate Challenge from Madisonstar Moon to Mick West

TWCobra

Senior Member
Madison has asked me to request that Mick appear on her show to discuss mutual matters of interest in a one to one debate format.

Mick, over to you.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Don't agree unless there is a set format allowing equal time. Debate one person, not two or three.

I suggest Lincoln-Douglas style.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln–Douglas_debate#Format

This forces debaters to construct sound arguments, allows them to rebut assertions and ask questions revealing weaknesses while avoiding time stealing and Gish Galloping.

We already saw how TWCobra was stepped on by Russ Tanner who ran out the clock and wouldn't stop interrupting and then wouldn't stop talking.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I suggest that equal time be given to a debate in a forum of your choosing too - on here perhaps, or in a more rational show than hers - so 2 debates.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
Off-limits certain things too if possible. Given what I perceive as a rise in anti-debunker sentiment amongst believers at the mo, I'd expect anything like this to devolve into 'You're CIA funded' absurd mudslinging if you get anything like an upper hand, and that'll waste time and energy.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Off-limits certain things too if possible. Given what I perceive as a rise in anti-debunker sentiment amongst believers at the mo, I'd expect anything like this to devolve into 'You're CIA funded' absurd mudslinging if you get anything like an upper hand, and that'll waste time and energy.
Off topic a bit and if an admin wants to move it to its own thread feel free.

If this website was owned and/or funded by the U.S. government then wouldn't Mick editing the posts be considered a violation of a persons 1st amendment rights?
 

Ross Marsden

Senior Member
Mick has a very effective counter to those tactics. I was shocked when I first saw this, but it just brings the attacker to a halt real quick.
Goes like this: "OK, let's just suppose that I am a CIA agent. Now, can you find anything that I have said that is demonstrably incorrect?"
This lifts the conversation from the bottom of the argument pyramid right up to the top where the actual issues are discussed.

Works best in a forum situation. In a recorded interview it is a firm take in the ground to be able to refer to later.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Off topic a bit and if an admin wants to move it to its own thread feel free.

If this website was owned and/or funded by the U.S. government then wouldn't Mick editing the posts be considered a violation of a persons 1st amendment rights?
I doubt it, it seems quite reasonable that even a government site would have terms of service that restricted the types of speech. Free Speech is not an unlimited right, any more than the right the bear arms is unlimited. There are allowable restrictions depending on circumstances (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, for example).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Mick has a very effective counter to those tactics. I was shocked when I first saw this, but it just brings the attacker to a halt real quick.
Goes like this: "OK, let's just suppose that I am a CIA agent. Now, can you find anything that I have said that is demonstrably incorrect?"
This lifts the conversation from the bottom of the argument pyramid right up to the top where the actual issues are discussed.

Works best in a forum situation. In a recorded interview it is a firm take in the ground to be able to refer to later.
Basically with some people there's no real point trying to convince them you are trustworthy, and then convincing them of the facts. So it's best to start the other way around - assume you are untrustworthy (which they do anyway) and focus on the facts. Maybe if you can point out a few things where they were wrong, then they might see that you have a bit of a point.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Madison generally seems rather untrusting. I'd be surprised if she actually goes through with this.
 
Last edited:

Boston

Active Member
No clue who she is or what she's arguing but it could be interesting. Any idea what the subject is ?
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
She just accosted some poor guy at the FAA, said "I will end up suing you, I will end up suing you personally Duane." It is recorded on her show.

Edit: for correction on my error.
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Active Member
Ok, let's just agree we are somewhat doubtful about this debate and stop the discussion about a debate that hasn't even happened yet. What's to gain? Best case: I-told-you-so's. Worst case: more material for finger-pointing and ad-hominems for her.

This hardly helps in working towards debate.
 

Strawman

Active Member
By the way: a good format for a debate would be a thread for Mick and Madison and noone else. Forum threads can take the speed and urgency out of a debate and make it more about a reasoned argument. Well, potentially, that is. At least they make quoting and focussing easier. You can take however long you need to craft a well-researched and reasoned response instead of having to answer right away.

If the goal of debate for both sides is an honest, well-researched discussion based on sources, not on time-limits, getting the upper hand etc, forums can help.

/naivete off.
 

M Bornong

Senior Member
She just threatened some poor guy at the FAA, said "I will end up ....... you, I will end up ...... you personally Duane." It is recorded on her show.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/madisonstarmoon/2013/07/29/madison-star-moon-calling-the-feds

Soulfly, is this the recording? I think the segment you are talking about is @16:20, she says, "I'm going to keep calling y'all, for ever until someone acknowledges my formal filed complaints, and I will end up suing you, I will end up suing you personnaly Dwayne..." Are you sure you didn't misunderstand, I've listened to this segment several times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/madisonstarmoon/2013/07/29/madison-star-moon-calling-the-feds

Soulfly, is this the recording? I think the segment you are talking about is @16:20, she says, "I'm going to keep calling y'all, for ever until someone acknowledges my formal filed complaints, and I will end up suing you, I will end up suing you personnaly Dwayne..." Are you sure you didn't misunderstand, I've listened to this segment several times.
Perhaps that is what she says.
Edit: That is what she says in fact.
 

M Bornong

Senior Member
She just threatened some poor guy at the FAA, said "I will end up ........ you, I will end up ....... you personally Duane." It is recorded on her show.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/madisonstarmoon/2013/07/29/madison-star-moon-calling-the-feds

Soulfly, is this the recording? I think the segment you are talking about is @16:20, she says, "I'm going to keep calling y'all, for ever until someone acknowledges my formal filed complaints, and I will end up suing you, I will end up suing you personnaly Dwayne..." Are you sure you didn't misunderstand, I've listened to this segment several times.
Perhaps that is what she says.
Edit: That is what she says in fact.
Is it too late to edit your previous post? Perhaps you should contact Mick or another moderator, so a correction can be made directly in that post. I'd hate to see a misunderstanding turned into the center of the debate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/madisonstarmoon/2013/07/29/madison-star-moon-calling-the-feds

Soulfly, is this the recording? I think the segment you are talking about is @16:20, she says, "I'm going to keep calling y'all, for ever until someone acknowledges my formal filed complaints, and I will end up suing you, I will end up suing you personnaly Dwayne..." Are you sure you didn't misunderstand, I've listened to this segment several times.

Is it too late to edit your previous post? Perhaps you should contact Mick or another moderator, so a correction can be made directly in that post. I'd hate to see a misunderstanding turned into the center of the debate.
I edited it, thanks for pointing out my error. I most defiantly do not want to implicate someone falsely.
Anyone who replied to my post should edit their reply as well.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/madisonstarmoon/2013/07/29/madison-star-moon-calling-the-feds

Soulfly, is this the recording? I think the segment you are talking about is @16:20, she says, "I'm going to keep calling y'all, for ever until someone acknowledges my formal filed complaints, and I will end up suing you, I will end up suing you personnaly Dwayne..." Are you sure you didn't misunderstand, I've listened to this segment several times.

Is it too late to edit your previous post? Perhaps you should contact Mick or another moderator, so a correction can be made directly in that post. I'd hate to see a misunderstanding turned into the center of the debate.

Wow. Those people are just irrational. They say the guy won't answer their questions, but Madison won't stop ranting long enough for him to speak.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
I don't think she is interested in discussing real topics with the FAA, EPA, or Mick....unfortunately.

It seems very difficult for her focus on one aspect of the "chemtrail" subject....and does not seem interested in discussing anything in depth.
I think she wants an "emotionally driven argument" on fifty topics.......and I believe Mick is asking her to narrow it to one or two pieces of disputed "evidence".
After all, her blog-radio show is only about 25 min. long.
What's wrong about discussing say, 2 topics, 10 minutes each ?.....that's all there really is time for, anyway. One topic might be even better.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I doubt this "debate" will happen, as I've asked her to actually provide a specific topic or piece of evidence to debate.

However, I'm still somewhat interested in doing it. It would be great if people did not give here an excuse not to participate, even inadvertently, so maybe y'all could just ignore her for a few days?
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
Good idea. I have an undercard bout lined up with none other than Peter Kusznir. Peter apparently believes he can "easily prove chemtrails". I'm interested to see what he has, but not holding my breath.

I have agreed to a debate provided it is one on one, and the topic is Peters claim that the Qantas 63 and 64 flights which regularly pass over Melbourne Australia, where he lives, are actively chemtrailing.

Madison is like most people. If you don't go down the insult and yelling route you can talk to her.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
Good idea. I have an undercard bout lined up with none other than Peter Kusznir. Peter apparently believes he can "easily prove chemtrails". I'm interested to see what he has, but not holding my breath.

I have agreed to a debate provided it is one on one, and the topic is Peters claim that the Qantas 63 and 64 flights which regularly pass over Melbourne Australia, where he lives, are actively chemtrailing.

Madison is like most people. If you don't go down the insult and yelling route you can talk to her.
I don't know about that. From what I've seen, she and her mates seem to think insults and yelling are fine, as long as it comes from them. When she hosts a discussion they seem to think nothing of shouting down their opponent, refusing to allow them time to respond, and then declaring 'victory' and claiming that the opponent *couldn't* answer their questions.
 

justanairlinepilot

Active Member
so, are airline pilots and meteorologists are unable to debate with Madison Star Moon? Mick is the curator of this place and full of information but why did she pick him? 26 years of flying doesn't get me a debate? Damn...
 

TWCobra

Senior Member
Madison regards Mick as her Arch Foe, her Doctor Evil if you will. Why debate Number Two or Fat Bastard when you can go after the big kahuna? I doubt she wants to discuss the intricacies of chemtrails that much... She will attempt to unmask Mick as the evil shill troll mastermind he obviously is.
 

justanairlinepilot

Active Member
Madison regards Mick as her Arch Foe, her Doctor Evil if you will. Why debate Number Two or Fat Bastard when you can go after the big kahuna? I doubt she wants to discuss the intricacies of chemtrails that much... She will attempt to unmask Mick as the evil shill troll mastermind he obviously is.

Fair enough...the question was rhetorical but I appreciate anyone's input. Anyone else? She will lose every debate, unless you believe in Santa Clause and werewolves.
 

Related Articles

Top