The Third Roberts-Fetzer Debate

[The Demon's Head]

Another thing that I'm baffled at is when twoofers continute to cite claims that have been refuted. Why do they continue to believe in their claim when the claim has been thoroughly examined and refuted? Why?

 

[Mercutio]

Another thing that I'm baffled at is when twoofers continute to cite claims that have been refuted. Why do they continue to believe in their claim when the claim has been thoroughly examined and refuted? Why?

Leon Festinger made a career out of that question. "When Prophecy Fails" (his book) gives his explanation of how our refutation of his claims can actually increase his belief in them. Next time I teach Social Psych, I have a new "perfect example" to use...

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm going to read the comments on this part after I finish watching it, but I really needed to comment on the bit I just saw. Gravy giving Fetzer the photos of the piles of rubble. The poor guy looked totally lost like his whole world had just fallen out from under his feet and managed a "well we'll have to add that to our data," lol. Priceless. The debate was worth it for that single moment, lol.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Just watched the third one, between browsing work doco.

Again, I don't think Fetzer was completely blown away. As Ginarley and others have previously said, Fetzer gets out so many arguments that some of them slip past Gravy and Pomeroo unopposed, and it looks like he achieves successful hits with these. Now, those who know the actual background of some of these arguments understand that they are incorrect or factually wrong, however due to the fact that Gravy and Pom don't pounce on them, it looks like Fetzer scores.

There were some brilliant pieces from Gravy however, that really convinced me he was on top of his game - much better than Parts 1 & 2:

1) where Gravy pulled out the photo of debris from WTC 1 inside WTC 6,
2) where Gravy pointedly told Fetzer to do a google search for "burnt cars" or "ladder 7"
3) where Gravy pulled out the photos from Judy's site showing how much rubble there actually was and Fetzer just completely paused and said "well, we'll add that to our data".
4) the number of times Gravy clearly pointed out that Fetzer had not done any actual research (i.e./ spoken with eye witnesses) and all Fetzer could answer was that they looked at photos and videos - second hand sources.

Point 3 was definitely a major kicker, it was very obvious it stopped Fetzer dead in his tracks.

I'd say that this third part was a definite improvement over Part 1, and a bit of a step up over Part 2. Pomeroo, I still think you needed to take a step back a little, especially since Gravy was so prepared and so ready to quash Fetzer like a bug. If Gravy had not been as prepared, then yes, I can see that you stepping in would have been advantageous, but Gravy pretty much had the upper hand here, and could have gotten more across in the time permitted if you had not engaged Fetzer directly.

I'd score it:
Gravy 90 Fetzer 10
for this installment.

Oh, and it makes me want to wander through the Hardfire archives. Obviously, the show is not available here in Australia.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Totovader]

Just FYI- I've started typing out the transcripts for each of the three debates. I think it will be necessary just to pick apart everything that Fetzer really avoided, and to hold him accountable for some of the things he said.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the 1st one- when I'm done with that I'll post it.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Just FYI- I've started typing out the transcripts for each of the three debates. I think it will be necessary just to pick apart everything that Fetzer really avoided, and to hold him accountable for some of the things he said.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the 1st one- when I'm done with that I'll post it.

You getting whiplash of the fingers for the sheer amount of topic changes he goes through every minute?

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Totovader]

You getting whiplash of the fingers for the sheer amount of topic changes he goes through every minute?

Cheers,
TGHO

Mercy, yes- unfortunately, I have to keep rewinding when Fetzer speaks. I've had to walk away a few times just because his pompous arrogance and just flat out ignorance repeated over and over is enough to drive me insane. On the other hand, I'm catching things I didn't the first couple times.

But- I really think it's needed, so I'm trucking away at it.

 

[Minadin]

How do you transcribe Fetzer trying to talk over Gravy?

 

[The Great Hairy One]

But- I really think it's needed, so I'm trucking away at it.

That's most excellent, let us know when it's done please.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Gravy]

Just FYI- I've started typing out the transcripts for each of the three debates. I think it will be necessary just to pick apart everything that Fetzer really avoided, and to hold him accountable for some of the things he said.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the 1st one- when I'm done with that I'll post it.

Who knew we had such a madman in our midst?

Wow. Thanks for doing this. I was going to make a list of Fetzer's false claims and unanswered questions, but I never intended to make a whole transcript. Honestly, though, I don't know if I'd get to doing that work. Spending 90 minutes with the goalpost tornado was plenty. I still haven't watched parts 2 and 3. So thanks.

To the folks who wish that Fetzer had been pinned down to discuss specifics: it's a nice idea, but it's not going to happen with him, no matter what debate guidelines are agreed upon. He's eager for attention, but he simply cannot defend his claims, nor will he try to. What's left? Just keep talking. Ron and I knew that's what we were getting. I had no illusions about keeping him on topic, which is why I stated in the first show that the important thing was to see what happens when people abandon critical thinking. They say really stupid things.

 

[ref]

I had no illusions about keeping him on topic, which is why I stated in the first show that the important thing was to see what happens when people abandon critical thinking. They say really stupid things.

Maybe the lowest low of critical thinking was displayed on his part when The Pentagon was discussed. He sounded exactly like Lyte Trip! He ignored all the witnesses, all the DNA, the debris, lightpoles. But he had ONE witness who didn't even see the crash, and he had Rob Balsamo's Pandoras Box to prove his point and some strange missile theory with two planes.

He looked very disturbed. When you said the FDR they base these analysis on was found at the Pentagon, and if the data was faked, why would they fake it to show the plane NOT hit the Pentagon, he was just annoyed.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

To the folks who wish that Fetzer had been pinned down to discuss specifics: it's a nice idea, but it's not going to happen with him, no matter what debate guidelines are agreed upon. He's eager for attention, but he simply cannot defend his claims, nor will he try to. What's left? Just keep talking. Ron and I knew that's what we were getting. I had no illusions about keeping him on topic, which is why I stated in the first show that the important thing was to see what happens when people abandon critical thinking. They say really stupid things.

Oh aye, I know. I've personally debated many creationists, I recognise the tactics Fetzer was employing. FWIW, you can never out-right win a debate with these guys, they always get points past you simply due to their debating methodology.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[westprog]

Actually, it just occured to me. Doesn't Fetzer claim that a plane could not have crashed into the Pentagon, because it would be aeronautically impossible for even a Cessna to fly that low to the ground.

How do they land those things?

I think that he's claiming that it couldn't have flown in at the reported speed. The simplest explanation, if this were true (which it of course isn't) is that it flew in slower.

 

[~enigma~]

Just FYI- I've started typing out the transcripts for each of the three debates. I think it will be necessary just to pick apart everything that Fetzer really avoided, and to hold him accountable for some of the things he said.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the 1st one- when I'm done with that I'll post it.

Whoa - good luck with that but isn't it sort of like transcribing the ramblings of a madman...I would sure be interested to see this in print but would Gravy have more than 5% of the first show?

 

[pgwenthold]

Oh aye, I know. I've personally debated many creationists, I recognise the tactics Fetzer was employing. FWIW, you can never out-right win a debate with these guys, they always get points past you simply due to their debating methodology.

Cheers,
TGHO

That's why I said, DON'T PLAY THE GAME BY THEIR RULES

Better to not debate at all then to get roped into a situation where they are allowed to banter in any direction they want.

Agree to debate specific topics. If they don't agree, and or complain, just let it be known that you will come anytime, anywhere to debate specific topics.

If none of these loons is able to debate the question "Did planes hit the towers?" as Gravy suggests, then it says more than what needs to be known.

 

[JamesB]

How do they land those things?

I think that he's claiming that it couldn't have flown in at the reported speed. The simplest explanation, if this were true (which it of course isn't) is that it flew in slower.

Yeah, because nobody would notice a slow moving fighter jet crashing into the Pentagon in broad daylight.

 

[tsig]

How do they land those things?

I think that he's claiming that it couldn't have flown in at the reported speed. The simplest explanation, if this were true (which it of course isn't) is that it flew in slower.

He has never heard of a power-on landing.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

That's why I said, DON'T PLAY THE GAME BY THEIR RULES

Better to not debate at all then to get roped into a situation where they are allowed to banter in any direction they want.

Agree to debate specific topics. If they don't agree, and or complain, just let it be known that you will come anytime, anywhere to debate specific topics.

If none of these loons is able to debate the question "Did planes hit the towers?" as Gravy suggests, then it says more than what needs to be known.

It doesn't work.

No matter how many promises you extract from these people, they will always wander off on a tangent. The problem is that to their minds, everything is inter-related. You can't talk about WTC7 without talking about the Pentagon, without talking about space lasers, etc., etc.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[pomeroo]

I can't speak for Mark, and I'm not making excuses for my difficulties in damming Fetzer's torrents of rhetoric. Still, when the guy started raving about the hanging of Saddam's "double," I was stopped in my tracks. I mean, what is there to say? If you're dealing with someone who imagines that another human--an absolutely IDENTICAL double for Saddam Hussein-- is willing to go to the gallows without EVER mentioning that he is not the person the whole world thinks he is, well, what is the appropriate procedure? I confess that I felt great pity for Fetzer, who was personally quite affable. That sort of thing tends to dull my killer instinct.

 

[jackchit]

I saw the first one and half of the second one today before a MORI poll guy interupted me.
I had a problem with the guy presenting as he clearly was fox like in his fair and balanced approach, rather anal at the begining of the 2nd episode describing Mark as "debunker extraordinaire" at one point I thought they were about to make out.
In the first episode he proceeded to make the comments that its possible to make a claim through scientific analysis that bumble bees can't fly so therefore you can make any old rubbish seem legit despite what you already know because obviously bees can fly, then he pushes this aside when the reports confirm the version of events that support the theory he is partisan to.
I will give Mark his due in the part of the second installment that I saw he did win on points but this was more due to the o'reilly like shouting....nay speaking over his opponent rather than letting his opponent make his points.
I shall watch the second and third episodes when i can fit them in.
Most of the points scored against fetzer were mostly pedantic language issues rather than actual proveable evidence (I have noticed this a lot with so called debunkers).
Don't get me wrong I'm no fetzer fan but the deck was clearly loaded, the captions at the bottom of the screen should have read "Jim Fetzer former professer" " Mark Roberts Tour Guide" so that the actual qualifications of said parties were not misleading to an audience without pre-conceived ideas.
Before you all gang up on me please go easy as its just turned 12 so now its my birthday.