Comrade Morlock welcomes debate but despite writing multiple thoughtful well-supported pieces, when pressed, his "debate" performance is almost uniformly a hodgepodge of logical fallacies, failure to address points, and other forms of intellectual stonewalling. I really don't understand it, but unless you have personal experience with debating him in a case where you are more knowledgeable and informed than he is in that area, I wouldn't recommend debating him. Maybe I've gotten particularly unlucky both when talking to him and reading others try the same, but while I really appreciate his willingness to debate, in practice I haven't found him responsive to reason that he didn't come up with himself. It's a shame, because he's clearly an astute thinker, and he writes great responses to simpleminded or silly objections to his points. So one would think it should work. I just never see it.