Making an antithetical statement doesn't invalidate anything by definition. If you have a rebuttal, do as the author, and express it. State specifically what you're opposing, and give your best rebuttal. Then we can consider what set of arguments and data best predict reality.
And without specifying why the claims are outrageous, you yourself is guilty of not providing any proof.
I fail to see how this moves the debate in a productive direction.
For a meaningful exchange of viewpoints to take place, I find it useful to establish what facts we agree on- and disagree on, and figure out their sources, before we heat up a debate, that is simply downstream of missing or poor evidence.
If two opposite parties in a debate, holding strong opinions, but both show up with strong evidence for either side, then both would ideally benefit from being exposed to the other.
Closing your eyes to the other sides evidence, while denying them of yours, accomplishes neither your and their goals - if the goal is the get closer to some resemblance of truth.
nottorp · · focus · HN ↗
prolly97 · · focus · HN ↗
FranzFerdiNaN · · focus · HN ↗
prolly97 · · focus · HN ↗
I fail to see how this moves the debate in a productive direction.
For a meaningful exchange of viewpoints to take place, I find it useful to establish what facts we agree on- and disagree on, and figure out their sources, before we heat up a debate, that is simply downstream of missing or poor evidence. If two opposite parties in a debate, holding strong opinions, but both show up with strong evidence for either side, then both would ideally benefit from being exposed to the other. Closing your eyes to the other sides evidence, while denying them of yours, accomplishes neither your and their goals - if the goal is the get closer to some resemblance of truth.