It's possible they all picked that side because it's the more fun side. After all, who needs facts?

You haven't explained the structure of this debate. Is it an in-class debate? Oral, written? Timed segments or back and forth? Questioning each other or laying out your own case? The format will help determine your approach and what, if any, peripherals (video, pictures, etc) you can bring in.

I get the impression it may be interactive. If so, be prepared for evasiveness. With so many people and just one of you, perhaps you could ask for some ground rules from the instructor, like one person at a time, so they can't swamp you with multiple topics simultaneously. Maybe the teacher will moderate? Also, get them to commit to their arguments. Don't let them argue vague maybe statements. "How about this? Maybe this?" No, they need to commit to their argument. If they aren't behind it but just throwing maybes, throw them a maybe - "Maybe the sky is green and you're just color blind." "Maybe Kennedy was a midget and they had him stand on a box all the time." If they can't commit to the argument, then they don't really believe it so why should you take it seriously. Also, if you are doing one question at a time, consider taking a show of hands - "Interesting question, how many others agree with that?" If they have to commit to stupid* questions, and you quickly show how stupid some of the questions are, that will make them less likely to ask the next stupid question. Don't let them pass around the stupid hat. If one person only presents one question he can later lay the blame on the rest of the class and say he wasn't that fooled. But if he has to commit to every argument, even those voiced by others, then that's part of the record.

They may try to bring up Bill Kaysing as some kind of Apollo insider. Don't let them over promote his (or anyone esle's) credentials. Kaysing was a technical writer - that means he wrote technical documents and checked their spelling and punctuation and grammar. Kaysing is not an engineer, and not technically trained. Ask them if they think their English teacher should have a say in organ transplants. Also, yes Kaysing did work for a NASA contractor (Rocketdyne), but he left the company in the early 1960's, well before the designs were mature and much of the hardware was built. His "insider knowledge" was out of date and untrained.

Same thing for Ralph Rene. Read up at Clavius, but the bottom line is that Rene claims to be a "self-taught" physicist or engineer. Ask them what that means? Ask them if they would rely on a "self taught" engineer to build a bridge they had to drive on every day.

Their strongest held arguments are likely to be the things they know least about. This seems to be a constant pattern of behavior. It has something to do with the feeling that if a topic is complex and you don't about it, then nobody else does either. Rene is extremely prone to this. Explaining technical details about those topics shows that you are more knowledgable than they are, which means the experts probably know something about it, too.

You might get a question about the gloves, or space suit design. Read up on it, especially the cooling system. Learn about evaporative cooling. The glove argument will possibly mention balloons. Mention the different suit layers - the inner pressure bladder (balloon) and the overlying cloth layer that held the pressure bladder from expanding. Discuss constant volume (accordian) joints.

If you get more specifics for this project and want more help, ask away. Keep us informed.


*I said stupid because it's funnier, but I mostly mean ignorant, as in uninformed. Show how uninformed they are, and make each of them commit to every uninformed question. That way they see it's their own ignorance, not the-next-guy-over's.