Skeptic

Tl;dr:

This article discusses the author's experience in arguing with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and how he realized that attempting to engage in a fact-based debate with someone prone to conspiracy theories is ultimately fruitless. The author first encountered this while countering Kennedy's claims about the 2004 presidential election, where Kennedy suggested it had been stolen from John Kerry, a claim that did not hold up under scrutiny.

The author suggests that debating with conspiracy theorists only lends legitimacy to their claims, even if their arguments aren't grounded in factual evidence. When attention is what they seek, engaging in a public debate is a form of loss, regardless of the facts presented.

Kennedy has recently come to attention again due to his controversial views on vaccines. When he spread misinformation about vaccines on Joe Rogan's podcast, there were calls for a debate with well-known vaccine researcher Peter Hotez, which Hotez has refused.

Reflecting on a public radio debate with Kennedy, the author concluded that while he corrected Kennedy's misstatements, the complexity and nuances of the truth may have made him appear pedantic and mired in detail. He argues that such debates with conspiracy theorists lead to a false impression of a balanced disagreement (one side says X, the other says Y), which ultimately does a disservice to the audience and the facts.