Poll: Do you think that threads should be closed after being debunked?

[Clock]

After Mick or any other member have debunked a topic, do you think that the topic should be closed for discussion to make it more accessible for non-members? If yes or no, explain why.

 

[JRBids]

One question, how does closing the thread make it more accessible for non members?

 

[Pete Tar]

Probably not, as we should always be open to new information that may change the status of a subject, or just to clarify or correct minor points of logic or fact.
And if someone says 'this is not debunked because...' then it gives an opportunity to communicate a point more efficiently, or explain it a different way, or to point out logical errors in their assumptions.
(edit. or they may even be right)

 

[Mick West]

No. Closing a thread does not provide real benefits. New readers start at the the beginning of the thread, and there's always room for new perpectives.

 

[JRBids]

Agree with Pete Tar and Mick. Some new angle usually comes up once one aspect is debunked.

 

[SeanDWalker]

I do believe you have reams of material that has been de-bunked very effectively, it'd be good if there was a way to categorize the most thorough/accurate ones where it's clear most avenues of any possible conspiracy have been looked at/addressed.

 

[Cairenn]

If they were closed, it would need to be with a provision that new information, posted in a new thread would be welcomed