The problem is it wasn’t a true debate. Some of the participants weren’t interested in proper debate but simply interested in voicing their opinions and deriding the opposition.
You’re absolutely right that the format needs to be different (and the participants) if we want to see the truth come to light.
When you have a “religious” stand about something, no one is going to convince you otherwise. Clearly there exists a cult of Big Pharma with its own set of written texts and a whole set of believers.
If you want an interesting example, look no further than with the Jewish tradition of Talmudic Debate.
Copilot:
Debate is absolutely central to Jewish tradition, and the Talmud is one of its richest arenas for it. The format is distinctive and unlike most modern “debates,” because it’s not about winning an argument, but about exploring truth from multiple angles.
Here’s how it works:
Core Features of Talmudic Debate
A Talmud page is designed for conversation across centuries. The central text (often Mishnah or Gemara) sits in the middle, surrounded by layers of commentary from rabbis in different eras and places. These voices “talk” to each other even if they lived hundreds of years apart.*
- *Multiple voices preserved
Disagreements are recorded in full — majority and minority opinions alike. Even when one ruling becomes law, the dissenting view is studied with equal seriousness.*
- *Respect for opposing views
The Talmud teaches that “These and those are the words of the living God” (Eruvin 13b), meaning opposing interpretations can both hold divine truth. This fosters a culture where being proven wrong is not shameful.*
- *No time limits or winners
Unlike formal debate competitions, there’s no “closing statement” or declared victor. The goal is depth, clarity, and refinement of ideas*
Honestly, I would have been most interested to hear a one-on-one discussion between Dr. Wilson and Dr. Kory, without the uncredentialed Dave Farina and his foul mouth.
Wow!