What's to discuss? The support you offered for your premise in the OP was rebutted. You responded by acknowledging that the rebuttal called your premise into question, but that you would continue to stand by it anyway.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I appreciate the response I've got, I really do. But nowhere in there can I find a shred of evidence to support any "rebuttal" made.
Also, there has not been
any evaluation of the evidence I brought forth to support my belief. The only scrape even near was that of gumboot explaining the intricacy of financing with regard to Halliburton and KBR. However, even that was purely anecdotal with no source provided. Even if true, it would address only a tiny part of the vast amount of information I linked to in the OP.
I have repeatedly asked for whatever means of
evidence to support any "rebuttal". None has been given. Once again, I'm completely willing to alter my belief, if given the evidence to support this alteration. I'd really appreciate you showing me exactly where in this thread you feel the
evidence I brought forth has been rebutted (with evidence).
I believe you, as a fellow member of the skeptical community, can appreciate me not abandoning my belief (which I see to be based on extensive amounts of evidence) simply because people
say so?
However, instead of justifying your commitment to your premise by offering additional, un-rebutted support, you simply stuck with the support you'd already offered, in spite of the rebuttal (which you also did not counter).
Please, could you tell me why I should offer "additional, un-rebutted support" when even the most basic aspects of my original evidence have not been adequately evaluated or rebutted? I continue to justify my belief simply because it's still the belief with the most evidence on it's side.
Once again I ask you, read through the articles I linked to, pinpoint whatever error or bias you find in them, and support your assertion with according evidence. OR give evidence-based reasoning for why you think what I offered as evidence for my belief can not be counted as such in the first place.
These I believe are the ways in which a discussion based on evidence is handled. I've given you mine, now you give me yours.
Unless you have anything new to bring to the table, there's really nothing more to say.
Secretly, when I gathered the links in the OP, I was fearing this would happen. But believing these forums to be in this regard different to so many others, I thought I'd give it a shot.
I accept your notion of "nothing more to say". But I challenge you to show me first that "everything that can be, has been said". In my opinion, there's (at least) two options of letting an evidence-based discussion fade.
1. We've come to a mutual agreement on the evidence, it's validity and conclusions drawn from it
2. One side simply backs out of conversation without even an attempt to look at the evidence provided, claiming (without offering supporting evidence) that the other sides opinion/belief is simply false
To me, the first is rational and aims to develop an understanding of the subject. The second I find to be common in discussions with people holding religious beliefs on the subject at hand.
). Maybe I'm just too used to the way evidence is handled in the GS&P and SMM&T sub-forums... 