Valentijn
Guest
The problem is with being able to prepare for dealing with outright lies. If statements made by one party have no basis in reality, there's been no opportunity to fact check their claims. It gives the liar quite an advantage, because the only defense to a new lie is going to be "I don't know what you're talking about", which doesn't look very persuasive.They however didn't know how fast to get rid of Tuller, before he pointed out the plethora of faults in their work. With an unpartial moderator and faced with someone that knows their stuff they wouldn't stand a chance imo, however charming they may be.
What I would like to see is an arbitrator (or panel of them) judging and summarizing a written debate. They get away with avoiding substantial criticism and various logical fallacies in journal comments because those journals simply print what is being said, rather than taking any accountability for analyzing or judging what is said.