The entire premise of up- and down-voting is that some comments are more valuable _to read_ than others. “Let’s just have a debate” isn’t really a fair criticism; we can’t afford to debate everything, so ultimately there’s going to be a preceding value judgment.
That value judgment may look a lot like an ad hominem, but it’s perfectly rational—for example, in this case, the question is, should I take the time to seriously engage with a book written by a man who claims vaccines cause autism, led a group that opposed flouridation of drinking water, claimed that 5G “damages DNA” and is being installed to facilitate “mass surveillance”, and, oh, by the way, is a master falconer? (Nothing wrong with that, but I find it hilarious.)
Obviously the answer is no. There are a lot of interesting, well-founded books on science that I want to read, and I just don’t have time to read a book by a master falconer, let alone engage meaningfully with it online. Maybe the earth is flat, and I’m just living with my head in the sand. Oh well?
That value judgment may look a lot like an ad hominem, but it’s perfectly rational—for example, in this case, the question is, should I take the time to seriously engage with a book written by a man who claims vaccines cause autism, led a group that opposed flouridation of drinking water, claimed that 5G “damages DNA” and is being installed to facilitate “mass surveillance”, and, oh, by the way, is a master falconer? (Nothing wrong with that, but I find it hilarious.)
Obviously the answer is no. There are a lot of interesting, well-founded books on science that I want to read, and I just don’t have time to read a book by a master falconer, let alone engage meaningfully with it online. Maybe the earth is flat, and I’m just living with my head in the sand. Oh well?