"Won't you have an online debate?" "Debate me" culture is a tactic often seen in media punditry & extremist online communities. A Catch-22. If the target accepts the demand, they acknowledge the premise of the argument as valid. If they refuse, they are called cowardly or wrong.
https://twitter.com/dambaras/status/1447217398805827586
Oftentimes these demands for debate are made knowing that that target is aware it is a logical trap--it is a tactic not intended for actual debate to take place, because the challenger knows they won't accept. The goal is to try to make yourself look good and your enemy look bad.
I will say it again, for the zillionth time, you don't owe anyone your time and energy who is a bad faith actor and who is not willing to meet you on premise of academic integrity, truth, and mutual respect.
As David notes, the original article in question lacks academic integrity. This means it is full statements that cannot be verified with legitimate sources. This means it cannot, and should not, be used as a basis for debate. Debating untruths is moot.
https://twitter.com/dambaras/status/1447219401502121990?s=20
When our harassers have prepared their refutation to the original refutation, we look forward to its publication in a historical peer-reviewed journal. Until then: apjjf.org/2021/5/Concern… 
We encourage them to look up "mischaracterization of evidence," "selective citation," and "inaccurate and inappropriate citation practices," along with "academic misconduct" while they're at it. Educators will be teaching how NOT to write history using R's article for years.
And, if you're coming to this drama fresh and are confused (sorry new followers!), then you can read a short primer on it that I wrote for Tokyo Review here that helps explain the last 7 months of our lives: tokyoreview.net/2021/05/ramsey…
*full OF statements. plenty of full statements that can't be verified though. 😛
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
