Debate Challenge from Madisonstar Moon to Mick West

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Erm, what does this mean? Do you mean the principles of politeness for effective communication extend to the rest of the world, or just that we should be polite here if we're talking about someone not-here?
The politeness policy extends to people on or off this site. Calling MM a w**** on this site would violate the politeness policy.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Erm, what does this mean? Do you mean the principles of politeness for effective communication extend to the rest of the world, or just that we should be polite here if we're talking about someone not-here?
We should avoid being impolite to people who are not here if there is a chance that this will reflect negatively on our debunking. In particular calling people stupid or mentally ill can be taken very personally by other people who share the viewpoint of the person you are insulting. There is little upside to denigrating people, even if it is true.

Better to just politely explain how they are wrong.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
We should avoid being impolite to people who are not here if there is a chance that this will reflect negatively on our debunking. In particular calling people stupid or mentally ill can be taken very personally by other people who share the viewpoint of the person you are insulting. There is little upside to denigrating people, even if it is true.

Better to just politely explain how they are wrong.
Mick has explained it better. Many people have claimed that MB has said terrible things about them but they never back it up. Because for the most part they can't. https://www.facebook.com/ChemtrailsAreVeryReal on the other hand really doesn't move the ball forward debunking wise because everything descends into name calling and facts fall by the wayside.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I agree with that, I have trouble with some of the animal folk's response to posts about animal abuse. Many of them want the abuser treated like the animal they abused and others just want them executed. Real nasty comments. Mind you, I have said for years, that if I ever get angry enough to hurt someone it will be to stop either the abuse of an animal or a child. STOP is the operative word.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Erm, what does this mean? Do you mean the principles of politeness for effective communication extend to the rest of the world, or just that we should be polite here if we're talking about someone not-here?
It probably works well all round, eh? Those that live by the sword, and all that? Forgive wherever possible. Move on. More serious stuff lies ahead.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Mick has explained it better. Many people have claimed that MB has said terrible things about them but they never back it up. Because for the most part they can't. https://www.facebook.com/ChemtrailsAreVeryReal on the other hand really doesn't move the ball forward debunking wise because everything descends into name calling and facts fall by the wayside.
If you stick away at the facts and never respond to the name-calling, then the overall impression remains that it is your side that is presenting the facts.

These facts may well be represented as lies, but then at least the other side has to justify that claim. And that puts the fact/lie on both sides of the argument, where beforehand it wasn't. Then the reader may explore this fact/lie at leisure. Over time, the cogent scientific argument will prevail. Just don't hold your breath. It might be decades. :)
 
Last edited:

David Fraser

Senior Member
This name episode has not panned out on these boards but has on Facebook. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs it has been quite a valuable exercise. It is clear that she preaches to a limited audience. It is clear that she knowingly puts false information up. Once her"whistleblower" revelations were getting corrected the correctee became blocked and also others were told to block them. I am more convinced there was no whistleblower. She is pushing the MB meme purely for attention and to garner support, or rank, within the CT hierarchy. Given the content of her posts and radio broadcasts and their often manipulative nature, the goal to make her the victim, it is clear her motivations are to seek attention and approval to bolster her own insecurities. At the end of the day engaging with her is just enabling her in her endevours. Mick has mentioned a few times but she is best left alone, not only from a debunking sense but her own wellbeing.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
The 'anti-whatever' folks seem to be willing to bully folks and when they get forced into a corner by their beliefs, they respond by claiming to be victims. Of course, they started out as 'victims' of what ever they are against (BP, Monsanto, the Illuminati).

One thing that helped the group of us on the BP spill was a closed FB group where we could rant and complain and such and basically let off the steam that would have resulted in more name calling (we still had a couple of guys that seemed to enjoy the name calling--they didn't really help). The page also allowed us to be a little more organized in our posts. I really wish I had known some of the things then that I do now, like how to counter a Gish Gallop.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The 'anti-whatever' folks seem to be willing to bully folks and when they get forced into a corner by their beliefs, they respond by claiming to be victims. Of course, they started out as 'victims' of what ever they are against (BP, Monsanto, the Illuminati)..
Well to be fair, the Facebook page Madison refers to do seem to be a bunch of very impolite and aggressive people who actually ARE bullying her.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
Well to be fair, the Facebook page Madison refers to do seem to be a bunch of very impolite and aggressive people who actually ARE bullying her.
She should check out Alex Jones' own page. If someone puts themselves out as an authority, celebrity, activist, whatever....they open themselves up to the praise AND the criticism. She bullies you also.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
She should check out Alex Jones' own page. If someone puts themselves out as an authority, celebrity, activist, whatever....they open themselves up to the praise AND the criticism. She bullies you also.
Perhaps so. But that does not change anything.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Doubt it, since she seriously thinks Mick is in league with the anti-christ, or the forces of evil, which she is bravely fighting.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
It just greatly intensified.
Still, why wouldn't she(and anybody else she cares to bring along) want to jump at the chance to show you for the lying shill she thinks you are? I guess it's a rhetorical question. It wouldn't matter what you said- she wouldn't look at it from a scientific point of view. She would just say you are lying. I guess I wonder why she doesn't want to take the opportunity to do that. As always, there is no explaining the actions of people with the chemmie mindset.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
Still, why wouldn't she(and anybody else she cares to bring along) want to jump at the chance to show you for the lying shill she thinks you are? I guess it's a rhetorical question. It wouldn't matter what you said- she wouldn't look at it from a scientific point of view. She would just say you are lying. I guess I wonder why she doesn't want to take the opportunity to do that. As always, there is no explaining the actions of people with the chemmie mindset.
She knows he's not lying. She's just not going to give anyone a chance to talk. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!"
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
She knows he's not lying. She's just not going to give anyone a chance to talk. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!"
As I saw with the Planet X people, it is almost impossible to tell whether they actually believe what they claim to believe. In Maddy's case, I think she actually believes that everything Mick says is a lie. She just can't fit what he says into her belief system as any sort of truth, so by default it HAS to be a lie. She won't look any deeper than that.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
MM has said she invited Mick to debate her with a link to this thread. On Amanda's FB page she said she wanted to talk about the 70 years of persistent contrails YouTube video.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
I copied that and then tried to go to the actual link to the message and it was not there. Returning to her main page and I can't see the comment now. She says: "I invited..." in past tense. Where/when did she put forth the actual invitation?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I copied that and then tried to go to the actual link to the message and it was not there. Returning to her main page and I can't see the comment now. She says: "I invited..." in past tense. Where/when did she put forth the actual invitation?
That post was what I was referring to.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
But she's not a shill - she's illuminati - so it's a matte of whether mick's shillee's are better than MM's Illuminati handlers.

Let's get the grey men into the ring and have the handlers sort it out - I want to know which NWO is going to win!!
 

Gundersen

Active Member
Personally, I'm glad she deleted her own challenge post today...
what chance does a retired video game programer have,
up against A/MM's impeccable logic?
I suspect you might be sarcastic about the "glad" part, but I would really love to see the debate. I saw her post on Facebook yesterday too, and I became a bit excited. No matter what would happen, I can only imagine it would be a benefit for the debunking community.

If it happened, I can only imagine two possible scenarios:
  1. The claims and/or evidence which is presented and discussed will be debunked, without any reasonable counter arguments. This will show that Mick West knows what he talks about.
  2. Mick West will not be allowed sufficient time to talk, will not be listened to or similar, which will make a fool out of the believers and again show that a lot of them aren't interested in any form of objective debate.
Those people who can't see what is really happening after a debate like that, will (IMO) be out of reach anyway.
 

Gundersen

Active Member
  1. Mick West will not be allowed sufficient time to talk, will not be listened to or similar, which the believers will claim as a victory since Mick was unable to answer any of their questions or debunk their evidence
As I said:
Those people who can't see what is really happening after a debate like that, will (IMO) be out of reach anyway.
But yes, unfortunately, you are probably right.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Recorded debates are show-pieces, best avoided really. Stick to text rebuttals. Pretty sure Mick doesn't want to get involved anyway, not without the use of a neutral third-party moderator.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Recorded debates are show-pieces, best avoided really. Stick to text rebuttals. Pretty sure Mick doesn't want to get involved anyway, not without the use of a neutral third-party moderator.
does anyone still listen to her? her beach protest thing was a lead balloon and the radio talk I heard her give not that long ago didn't seem to have too many listeners. She's probably just hoping Micks name will bring her more 'listeners'.
 

NoParty

Senior Member
This (below) is how Madisonstar Moon/Amanda Williams chose to describe herself
on Facebook a year ago. Does this appear to be a person who is interested in a fair,
productive, intellectual debate with someone who does not share her belief in "chemtrails" ??


Screen Shot 2014-11-06 at 5.17.20 AM.png



p.s. Yes, Gunderson, your sarcasm detector is functioning properly...
I have no doubt that--in a properly moderated forum--Mt. West would make a
lot more sense than her...I reckon she knows at least to avoid an even playing field
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I chatted with her on Facebook yesterday. It went better than previous interactions, but I still don't feel like a "debate" would be that useful. Perhaps if the focus could really just be on persistent contrails, and the claims difference between a contrail and a "chemtrail".

I'd also like to try to get across what I mean by "debunker", which is different from what she means.
 

NoParty

Senior Member
Yes, if there was structure...and evidence re. just contrails could be discussed, I too would like to see it.

But it's hard for me to imagine her--once that isn't going well for the "chemtrails" side--not trying to gish off
into fluoride, GMOs, Freemasonry, "Death Towers," "FREE" energy "supplied to us from God" (?) and more...
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member
I chatted with her on Facebook yesterday. It went better than previous interactions, but I still don't feel like a "debate" would be that useful. Perhaps if the focus could really just be on persistent contrails, and the claims difference between a contrail and a "chemtrail".

I'd also like to try to get across what I mean by "debunker", which is different from what she means.
So, did she actually ask you to have a debate with her?
 

NoParty

Senior Member
Could it have been the Facebook equivalent of "drunk dialing"?



(and once she had a chance to think about it, she realized "Wait...this might not be such a genius plan...")
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I'd also like to try to get across what I mean by "debunker", which is different from what she means.
Perhaps off topic, but I've always thought that "debunker" is a very negative-sounding word. Yes, I get that it means "removing bunk", and that bunk is a bad thing, but the word itself doesn't sound helpful. Mythbuster is a better one, but that has been taken...
 

Related Articles

Top