Drawing the line between free speech and skepticism

A common criticism that I've seen about debates, such as the famous debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye, is that these debates shouldn't be had in the first place, because the very act of engaging in a debate against, say, someone who believes that the Holocaust never happened, is already giving that side some credibility. In other words, someone making a claim as ridiculous as that, shouldn't even deserve to step on a podium in front of thousands of people (not to mention the billions who will be watching online) against a Historian or Archeologist, and engage in this debate, as if there was anything that had to be debated.

Now, I'm all about free speech, and not banning any discussion from happening... but I do see the point being made. However, I personally believe that there will always be people who publish books, shoot documentaries, and run entire industries of information based on stuff that is not true. By this very logic, such information should also be tossed into a huge pile and burned. Just think of all the libraries of documents that look very neat and professional, and that contain nothing but lies and misinformation. Should we ban those from existence? I don't think so.

However, I'd like to hear more about the other side. The one that argues that the very act of engaging in certain kinds of debates, already gives some sort of "credibility" to the other side.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1GbVXT4