The typical (or stereotypical, if you prefer) conspiracy theorist argues more from rhetoric than from reason. That is, if a debate ensues he will try to win it by manipulating the debate framework so that he can't possibly lose. That usually means avoiding a meaningful test of the ideas, achieving at worst a stalemate that can continue going around and around. For example, see the 500 or so posts by Bart5050 on the subject of UFOs.
The rules at BAUT are designed to force a test of the ideas, not of the ability of their proponent to suck them away from scrutiny. They don't impede people who really do have a point to make and who want the opportunity to make it. The rules are only a problem for people who are trying to sneak their way through a debate.
|