Well, I debated Nathan Thompson and even though I spent days watching his previous debates and felt prepared for his delusional ramblings….there is no real preparation. I’m not a scientist by any measure, but you don’t have to be to debunk the fallacious assertions Nathan threw my way. Rather than bother with refuting his tenuous grasp on scientific theory, I chose to focus on his tenuous grasp on reality. His “Global conspiracy” theory holds no water in a logical world, and characteristic of someone suffering a delusional disorder, Nathan attempts to adjust reality to fit his perspective. It doesn’t work well. At the end of the day, nobody really wins, because you can’t have a debate with him – he lives in a world left of reality, and nothing will change that – hence my strong suspicion that he is afflicted with mental illness.
Some of the highlights include:
Nathan insisting that the shadow observation Eratosthenes used to calculate the circumference of the Earth works on a flat model.
This is elementary school stuff.
Nathan claimed that ships observed sinking over the horizon was a matter of perspective, not proof of the earth’s curve.
Come on. Perspective accounts for objects appearing smaller as they move away, not dipping below the horizon.
Nathan claimed I was “triggered” and “melting”.
His word salad is entirely headache inducing. I had to stop myself from correcting him every time he tried to invoke the second law of thermodynamics incorrectly – there was no point. He doesn’t understand the concept of an “isolated system”.
Nathan claimed to have seen God, but if he put it into words, he’d be discrediting God.
Nathan Could Not Actually Answer One Question Directly.
Nathan claimed the moon’s light is “septic”, and we use it to make beef jerky.
You can’t make this shit up.
Anyway, you can see the full debate here, and vote on it below. The moderators did score me the winner, but in all fairness, Nathan did all the legwork for me, I spent more time incredulous and baffled than even I expect. The official scores are below the video.
Each category begins at 22.
Argumentation: 12 (max 30)
Refutation: 23 (max 30)
Structure: 18 (max 29)
Presentation: 22 (max 30)
Civility: 2 (max 25)
TOTAL SCORE: 77 (max 144)
Notes: Bristol did not maintain civility. She cursed a lot. Her case that Nathan is simply mentally ill and his theories are not logic or fact based and do not line up with observable nature was strong. She poked holes in Nathan’s rule of observation by pointing out not observing God – and his response helped prove her case for mental illness.
Argumentation: 19 (max 30)
Refutation: 8 – did not answer questions directly, word salad (max 30)
Structure: 25 (max 29)
Presentation: 8 (max 30)
Civility: 10 (max 25)
-2 points for being late
TOTAL SCORE: 60 (max 144)
Nathan was not able to directly answer questions. He used a lot of made up terms and didn’t correctly cite scientific laws. He was condescending and rude, and his argument was disjointed and not based in observable nature. Nathan could not make a strong argument for a global conspiracy. Nathan misquoted Neil Tyson Degrasse and contradicted himself frequently. Nathan’s responses helped strengthen Bristol’s case that he may be suffering from mental illness. Nathan lost points for being 20 minutes late.