There were some good parts in the program, but I have to say that overall this debate reminded me a lot of the average person-versus-person (media) debate over the topics of the Holocaust or Creationism. The reason I say this isn't to make the implication that truthers are Nazis or religious zealots, but that the tenor and pattern of the way the argument points are presented are practically parallel in the flow of conversation. Brainster, all due respect to your appearance, the discussion got into quite a few instances of semantic conflict where Dylan would say one thing and you guys would state it wasn't factual, as well as vice versa. This is mostly due to the scattershot methodology of truther arguments that dip heavily into confirmation bias, but it tends to heavily water down the conversation. I will note, though, that the last comment you got in (Brainster) was excellent, and that more breakdowns like that are exactly what get the point across about how much pure cognitive dissonance and emotional pleading are involved in the truther arguments. Kudos on that.
I'm mentioning this primarily because I've been growing more and more fond of the methodology and approach that Michael Shermer takes when he has the opportunity to enter a debate, in that for topic like this that are bound and determined to turn into semantic battles of disparate claims, Shermer keeps directing the focus of the conversation onto the meta-issue of the tactics being used and the cognitive dissonance necessary to ignore what answers are available in order to present the "argument from the gaps" inherent in these types of presentations. Now naturally, when it comes to presentations like Screw Loose Change or the other debunkings of the claims made by truthers, there is merit and value to dissecting each one of their fantastic assertions. What I'm saying is that when the opportunity to present the case on a (somewhat) live medium takes place, you're never going to be afforded the time to address every one of the points asserted in the staccato of truther claims, and that the most effective counter-points made in such situations involve disarming their attempts to stay "on the attack" or diffusing their scatter-brained disparate litanies by directing the conversation back to a focus. On more than one occasion in the radio interview, I heard you (Brainster) or Rob do precisely those two things, but more often than not the conversation strayed into the less-focused manner that favors the truther mentality. And it's because of this that your average truther who listens to this is going to come away convinced that Dylan "won" the debate, while those who are sympathetic to your case are (on average) going to come away thinking you "won" the debate. In essence, the best chance a debunker is going to have with a truther in a debate is to have a "draw" as a result.
I'm not trying to offer too harsh a critique or to claim I would be any more efficient-- you guys obviously knew your stuff, which proved quite helpful in stopping Dylan short more than once-- but I just wanted to offer my observation in case you found it useful in any future opportunities in addressing truthers in media.
