Debate fail

[pseudomonas]

The Guardian runs a "You ask, they answer" thing. This time, it's Neal's Yard. For some reason, they've chickened out without giving a single answer. I wonder why this could be? They also seem to be deleting any mention of the incident from their Facebook wall. Goodness knows why.

Comments

[robert_jones]

I don't think I agree. I've looked at the comments, and a lot of them are in the form, "You make claim X. What evidence do you have for this?" There's nothing particularly antagonistic about that, although perhaps fewer examples would have sufficed.

I've also looked at some of the other posts in the series, and they also contain some fairly blunt questions (e.g. someone who was very concerned that Divine chocolate isn't organic, which apparently undermines everything they stand for), but the answerers still managed to answer those questions.

Any way, refusing to participate in an online debate because some people are antagonistic seems like a bit of a non-starter. Not that they've given that (or anything) as an excuse.

[nanaya]

I think the example you give is fine. It was the "Don't you think what you're doing is unethical?" sorts of questions, and those where the questioner gave the impression of already having determined guilt, which I thought were excessive.

I haven't actually checked out previous examples, so indeed, this might well be par for the course. I wonder if NY knew that? Not that it matters; as I said, I still don't think they have any good excuse for non-participation, I just think it might *also* have been a bit of an own goal if it further fuels the feelings of persecution a few self-righteous homeopaths seem to want to indulge in.

Shame really. Oh well.