|
|
|
|
|
by vcdimension
513 days ago
|
|
Which means this; it gives further weight to the lab leak theory, and shows the reasoning behind it. I don't have time to watch the 3hr debate or read all of that article (which makes some misrepresentative statements, and like your response, is rather venomous in tone), but here is the response from rootclaim about the debate outcome: https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-... I also know from experience that scientists, and people in general, are often not well trained in the kind of probabilistic reasoning that is required for combining and weighing up multiple sources of evidence. |
|
It was 18 hours.
Three blocks of six hours.
Plus preparation time by both parties and the multiple judges who were chosen to have the kind of expertise to weigh up arguments.
Both parties were invested in making a case, and each put up $100,000 in escrow to add weight to the debate.
The case that you put forward lost.
It was debated by the person that put it forward.
He lost.