The thread was "Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD"
And I was one involved ...
Where one side would post 5+ posts, some quite long, to the other sides 2-3 posts. ...
Yes, this is what happens when one side just asks questions or states several erroneous posts. The answers are not necessarily easy one-liners, but need to supply significant information. This is also what happens when one side has evidence to provide and the other doesn't so they make stuff up.
... The 2-3 poster had to bow out because they couldn't keep up, not because the other posters somehow proved them wrong with facts.
You are free to hold that opinion. Myself, I suspect that Mindspawn ran out of misinformation and rabbit holes. Nor do I expect that he thinks he was defeated. Please note that I offered to wait for more answers, so arguing that the amount of information was overwhelming is a red herring fallacy.
Do you think the information I provided was wrong?
One of the other things that happens in debates like this is that the goals shift or are moved by one participant, so that it doesn't end when the original argument is dealt with -- and Mindspawns original "objection" was dealt with, he just kept piling on more things to be answered instead of acknowledging that it had been answered.
If you want to establish new rules, then I suggest having a clear goal is one.
Mindspawn
Message 3: My main problem with carbon dating is its calibration against tree ring chronology, ...
It was shown that (a) tree ring dating is accurate and (b) that carbon dating correlates with tree ring dating and thus can be used to calibrate it. At that point the debate should have been over.
Do you disagree?