Yes to this critique of @joerogan's #debatebobby call from @drskyskull: "In order for a debate to actually be worthwhile, both participants must be sincerely dedicated to finding the truth; if one side is not committed to the truth, they will have an advantage, because it is much easier to spout falsehoods than it is to refute them." Resonates with @AndrewDessler's latest post on the debating science (as distinct from policy), and he makes this valuable added point about the goals of those committed to a cause more than the truth (climate context): "It’s important to understand that the contrarian may not even be trying to win the debate. Rather, the goal of those opposed to climate policy is often to merely establish the existence of a debate and use this to argue that 'more research is needed'." theclimatebrink.substack.com… Also read @BrandyZadrozny's disturbing look at @RobertKennedyJr's presidential-race logic: "The conspiracy candidate: What RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine crusade could look like in the White House" yahoo.com/lifestyle/conspira…