When should you debate in oral public forums?

That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one bit:

As a general rule, one should not debate publicly with conspiracy theorists. Some conspiracies may be true and should not be dismissed out of hand. But any discussion needs to start by demanding the best available documented evidence, and then subjecting it to rigorous scrutiny. This is very often impossible to do in a public debate, where the unverified anecdote is elevated and methodological issues are obscured or unexamined. Furthermore, it takes more time to rebut a charge than to level it, and in the meantime the rebutter has no choice but to repeat some of the other side’s talking points.

Written exchange, with lags and third-party verification and evaluation, is often best for technical issues.  Don’t let the other side claim the mantle of “those who are willing to debate.”  In fact they are very often not willing to engage in the most appropriate kinds of debate.

In general, I am a big fan of YouTube, including for its educational value.  But — the debate issue aside — it is very often misleading on exactly these same technical issues.  Someone drones on and on with some kind of mesmerizing long story…except a lot of it isn’t true, and there is no real rebuttal.  Print culture is these days extremely underrated.  LLMs are often better yet, you can just ask them for more, or for an alternative point of view.