• The forum will be going down at about 7:30 AM CST Oct 16 for maintenance. We should be down less than 1 hour.

  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How debunking isn't debunking but denial and ignorance.

Imagine for a moment a scenario where people are referring to birds on a pond.

We do not know what the birds are because we were not there at the pond ourselves...but...

  • We have 18 independent eyewitness accounts who claim that the birds they saw at the pond were swans.
  • We have 8 news articles referring to the birds at the pond as swans.
  • We have 5 scientist reports who have studied the pond, it's habitat and environment and conclude that although there may have been other white birds such as geese or gulls, there was evidence of swans at the pond.
  • An artifact of a feather is found at the pond, the people who are holding it examined it and claim that the bird feather belonged to a swan.
Do we have enough evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that it was more than likely swans were at the pond?

Sounds logical doesn't it?

Well apparently not...because according to the logic of some so called debunkers on this forum, this is not evidence of swans at all.

For a start, we have to establish that the 18 eyewitnesses can tell the difference between a swan and other white water dwelling birds, such as geese or a gull. And because we cannot establish whether that the eyewitnesses can tell the differences or not as we have no way of testing them, then their accounts must be dismissed and ignored. This the allows us to ignore all the other evidence including the scientific reports and the artifact which they never address. Even though there isn't a single person counter claiming that there was swans at the pond.

Because I believe that it is possible that there was swans at the pond, I'm apparently lying and I am wrong to believe that there were swans at the pond.

However if we had numerous eyewitnesses who said, they saw geese and there were news articles, scientific reports and an artifact showing it was geese feather, then my position would have to shift. But nothing is being presented from the other side of the argument.

What I want to address though is the claim that the eyewitnesses can't tell the difference. This is a claim and all claims require evidence. If the debunker claims that the eyewitnesses are incapable of telling the difference, then they need evidence to support this notion.

To deny that the birds at the pond were swans without any evidence to counter the claims isn't actually debunking anything, they are employing denial and ignorance of the evidence to support what they personal believe.
 
Top Bottom