Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say obviously silly things.
It never did. The ‘right to bear arms’ as Americans was never envisioned as a licence to carry out school massacres using breech-loading, repeating weaponry; likewise, the First Amendment was never intended as an excuse for promoting ideas rejected by consensus.
That’s why I won’t call deniers ‘skeptics.’ That is dishonest. At Climate Nuremberg they’re referred to as climate Klebolds.
The inherent problem with debates is that they treat right and wrong views equally. ‘Affirmative’ and ‘Negative’ are neutral descriptors, but the truth is not neutral. How can we have a genuine exchange of views unless we start from an accurate understanding, and description, of each others’ ideologies? At The Berg I’m quite happy to let deniers explain to us why all of modern science is wrong, but first they have to admit their motivation is to disinform, confuse and destroy.
Is that asking too much?