• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Third Roberts-Fetzer Debate

ok, so overall, Mark clearly dominated....the first part excluded.

Well done Mark....left him in the dust. In the end I almost thought he might switch sides.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
ok, so overall, Mark clearly dominated....the first part excluded.

Well done Mark....left him in the dust. In the end I almost thought he might switch sides.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Would we be under any obligation to accept him?
 
Just finished watching the last two debates. Ron and Mark both did a great job, Fetzer jumped around so many times I had trouble following the debate a few times.

Good job both of you :)
 
Yes, great shows indeed, but I agree with gumboot in the first Debate thread, the next show should be about one topic, and one topic only. Force the twoofer to face the answers to his/her questions.
 
Holy crap, Fetzer even repeats the "Mike the EMT" claim that there was a countdown for the destruction of WTC 7.
 
well what do you expect, he is still clinging on to the "No hijackers on the passenger manifests" line...

Him and Griffin....they are like the Dinosaurs of the twoof movement.

TAM
 
Ron, I loved it when you nailed Fetzer on the FDNY/WTC7.
 
And Mark caps off the rout by showing what a piss poor researcher Fetzer is.

"Google Ladder 3!"

Indeed.
 
Last edited:
Get on the phone and give them a ring and ask them what happened to their firetruck.

That's a good idea, huh?
Awsome!

:bigclap
 
Last edited:
Am I mistaken or at around 26:50 did Fetzer say "In fact, virtually nothing the government has told us is false"? If so, heh.
 
Wow again!

Fetzie: That's not in my special area of expertise!
"The Scourge:" Jim, you've referred to yourself as a generalist...

(paraphrase)

I'd have to agree that Fetzer offers no actual intellectual content, but this was a heck of a lively debate, and offers a beautiful glimpse into the maelstrom that is a conspiracist's mind. Well done, Ron and Mark!
 
Pardalis said:
Yes, great shows indeed, but I agree with gumboot in the first Debate thread, the next show should be about one topic, and one topic only. Force the twoofer to face the answers to his/her questions.
Click to expand...



I've said this many times before. THe only way that anyone should ever agree to a debate is to narrow the topic significantly. "Was 9/11 an inside job?" is waaaaayyyyy too broad.

A good moderator will know the arguments that will come up (as should the debaters). If not, let each side submit a position paper summarizing their arguments. Then, pick out the most important points that each side will make and focus on them.

TOPIC 1: Did planes hit WTC1 and WTC2?

Anyone who brings up WTC7, the Pentagon, Shanksville, or even how the towers fell is immediately moderated back to the topic.

Discuss it until there is a resolution, or at least all that can be said has been said. Then move on to topic 2, which might be something like "How much steel was left after the buildings fell?"

Again, anyone who brings up WTC7, the Pentagon, Shanksville, how the towers fell, or whether or not planes hit the towers is immediately moderated back to the topic.

The key is to make the debaters focus on a specific topic and not allow room to jump all over the place.
 
pgwenthold said:
I've said this many times before. THe only way that anyone should ever agree to a debate is to narrow the topic significantly. "Was 9/11 an inside job?" is waaaaayyyyy too broad.

A good moderator will know the arguments that will come up (as should the debaters). If not, let each side submit a position paper summarizing their arguments. Then, pick out the most important points that each side will make and focus on them.

TOPIC 1: Did planes hit WTC1 and WTC2?

Anyone who brings up WTC7, the Pentagon, Shanksville, or even how the towers fell is immediately moderated back to the topic.

Discuss it until there is a resolution, or at least all that can be said has been said. Then move on to topic 2, which might be something like "How much steel was left after the buildings fell?"

Again, anyone who brings up WTC7, the Pentagon, Shanksville, how the towers fell, or whether or not planes hit the towers is immediately moderated back to the topic.

The key is to make the debaters focus on a specific topic and not allow room to jump all over the place.
Click to expand...
That would be a very short debate and one in which there were no truthers taking part. They (the woo like uncle Fester) can't allow themselves to be cornered and forced to look at their arguments.
 
I am, as will always be, forever amazed at the amount of information that Mark and Ron are able to retain and recite on a moments notice to negate the lies told by people like ol' uncle fetzer (doesn't deserve caps). I could watch 10 more episodes between the 3 of you...the entertainment value (and the critical thinking value of some of you) is priceless.

Thank you Mark. Thank you Ron. Your abilities to rise above the ridiculous in order to convey the obvious is truly inspiring.

My hat is off to you both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom