Okay, I don't see a point in attacking this because I know too little of either side of the argument. But I want to throw in a different comment:

There should be some initiatives (on various topics) to gather information, sources, quotes/statements, corrections/arguments in some versioned repository (e.g. git). These kinds of data needs to be gathered as a collective and updated/corrected with annotations and references and (archived) documents.

I'm quite serious about this. Same as how the crypto "encryption"/"privacy" debates start every 3-4 years. We should really do the same there. Including archiving prior judgements. But this needs to be approached as a collective. And "curated" for proper procedure or community-sourced approval or something. It would allow for more serious debate and wealth of material for proper communication/argumentation.