I used to believe in the moon hoax, too. But what I’ve learned is that bad arguments that are hastily-conceived often require very long explanations to refute. When you’re making a scientific response, you can’t just do it in a sound byte. I don’t think Joe Rogan understands this, and this is where his aggressive tactics betray him. He basically cheats himself out of a greater understanding.

I agree that Rogan’s entire argment on the second show was basically one big ad hominem. I don’t think you really did that badly the second time around, Phil. What Joe basically attempted to do was to provide a wide enough margin for his moon hoax conspiracy to exist. But this is the fallacy of the argument from ignorance. One cannot hope to win an argument this way, and it’s only a matter of time before someone makes a complete fool of him for doing that.

I think Joe would be in for quite a suprise if you were to challenge him to a formal written debate, where you have time to research his claims, rather than trying to respond to them on the fly.