Jaegerbombastic said:
You don't know that, but for the sake of argument lets just analyze that: Suppose someone from the anti-GG crowd goes onto a stream to debate. Worst case scenario its what you describe; zero sum. No one changes their opinion in the slightest. That person may even get mocked for what he says, as is the case of Koz/Kaz. Best case scenario is that he/she does get some people to, if not completely switch sides, then to moderate and think more critically of what their stance is.
So what happens when someone turns down the offer to debate because, like you claim, they consider it a pointless effort? The best case scenario is the same as the worst case scenario for option one; zero sum. No one has ever thought "Hey, that guy turned down a debate. Clearly that's because he has the more valid arguments!" Worst case scenario is that he/she comes off as a total coward. They have no problem voicing their opinion to a hugbox on Twitter, their personal blog, etc. but when given the opportunity to actually defend their argument, they flake.
The pro-GG side is the one offering to discuss and debate the topic, and the individuals putting up the stream itself have been very civil towards guests (the comments sections, being a comments section for a stream, is as inane as always). Meanwhile, the other side has not only actively avoided any debates on the issue but in a few cases have been trying to shut down discussion altogether.
Your argument is ridiculous. In moreso than the general sense of believing that implying I'm a "coward" will coax me into doing what you want me to.
By way of demonstrating as much, let me ask: Do you think there exists a single person whose opinion is worth taking seriously, who thinks less of Obama for not appearing on Alex Jones' show? That he's some kind of coward for not walking into an ambush set up by a detractor? Even assuming Alex manages to somehow medicate the crazy out of him for the interview and that it isn't some massive shouting match, nobody in his audience will give the slightest credence to anything he'd have to say. He won't persuade anyone of anything to his side, and hell, it's more likely that people supporting him would actively question his judgement moreso for bothering.
Carry that analogy elsewhere. Why do you think it is that evolutionary scientists generally avoid debating creationists? Such debates happen, sure, but they're hardly common. Reason is, of course, that there's nothing in it for the scientists. People predisposed to the creationist argument won't be swayed in brief argumentative talking points, yet you run the risk of people predisposed to evolution ending up swayed, however momentarily, by the kind of rhetorical tricks science can't apply, like "hm, why
are there still monkeys?"
And yet, why does it happen at all then? Why do liberals willingly go onto Fox News (aside from the obviously cherrypicked "easy target" ones)? They have something to gain from the exposure. Either getting an opinion or message out to an audience, clarifying their stance on a position, sharing new information, etc. They know they're going to get raked over the coals, but they do so because they have a point to make, an argument to make a case for, and here's where they can make it.
Yet here? Seriously, what could anyone possibly gain from going into a stream like this, in this hostile an environment no less, and saying anything? What hypothetical, mystical, ethereal thing could be argued that would even hazard coming out of the experience having gained anything? What on earth do you actually think you're "arguing" against?
Jesus, and I hate that I'm falling deeper into the "oh there's totaly a reasonable discussion to be had in an internet gaming forum" trap
yet again, but I'm genuinely curious now, all strawmen aside, what do you think the anti-GG "argument" is aside from wanting this all to be over?