Fact-Checking James Tour’s Embarrassing Debate Performance

Any rational person who watched my debate with James Tour was immediately struck by Tour's totally insane behavior, focused on chalkboard pageantry and shouting like a deranged lunatic for two full hours. But there is a lot more to discuss regarding the very numerous and very specific lies he told during the exchange regarding the scientific literature we were discussing. Not to mention the biased moderator and other key details, which deserve to be addressed. So let's dive into a little fact-checking endeavor, which comes with commentary from four experts in the OoL field: Dave Deamer, Loren Dean Williams, James Attwater, and Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo. Let's humiliate James even more AND learn about cool science in the process!

James thinks no one has demonstrated RNA formation on montmorillonite clay. He's a lying idiot:

James thinks no one has ever produced a fully self-replicating ribozyme. He's a lying idiot:

Check out "Is This Wi-Fi Organic?", my book on disarming pseudoscience!

[ChainsawChristmas]

I don't see how Rice University isn't completely embarrassed by one of their own professors acting like a reality show contestant.

[vejeke]

"I am going after the people that do not read the scientific literature"

– Dr. James Tour

[ShadowMeister]

MR. FARIIIINNNA
Gets me everytime man he lost it
💀💀💀

[tommytwotacos]

By the end, I was half-expecting him to start shouting, "If we 'evolved' from a cell, then why are there still cells around today?"

[am_]

"It's hard to publish my critiques because of peer review"
-An actual thing that James Tour said without irony

Edit:
The actual quote, which is functionally identical to what I wrote initially:

"First of all, it's very hard for me to publish a critique that is negative, because it has to get through peer review..."

[CRushDMV]

Honestly I should thank James Tour. If it weren’t for his complete idiocy, I would’ve never learned this much about systems chemistry and origin of life research.

[elivaughan]

"I cant publish my critiques because they are full of lies, so I will lie to the public instead." - That was the absolute best part of this whole thing.

[cjthenarhwalking]

So let me get this straight:

- The person timing the debate was a graduate affiliated with james

- The moderator only seemed to comment on points you made and questioning it

- and changed his arguments, from what they have been over the passed few years, in the debate without you knowing any of it

Doesn't exactly seem like the most neutral debate

[alisaurus]

“You just talk, talk, talk!”
Yes, James. Here in the DEBATE Dave would like to TALK. It’s a calmer version of screaming; you may want to try it sometime

[FL_]

The fact checking video being almost as long as the debate is almost poetic

[raptorcrasherinc.]

"It is very hard for me to publish a critique, because of peer-review." WELL NO FUCKING SHIT JAMES! I WONDER WHY YOU CAN'T GET ANYTHING PUBLISHED!

[iainrae]

Perhaps Mr Tour could explain, via the blackboard, how Jesus turned water into wine.

[kylepeach]

James: Show us the data
Dave: Shows the data
James: “no. That’s not how you’re supposed to play the game”

[baleriontheblackdread]

Screaming CLUELESS seems like a good debating tactic....

[jonnyjp]

"If I write 'not clueless' does that win?" Brilliant!

[petechimney]

In high school I was for a time on the debate team. If any of us used that same tactics of Mr. Tour, the moderator(s) would stop us and warn us to refrain from this type of behavior. If we kept up the poor behavior at the debate, we risked the moderator stopping the debate and declaring the other team the winner. This is not proper way to conduct a debate.

[TheGretsch]

He made Kent Hovind look cool and composed in debates.

[Nick-Nasti]

Moderator should be prohibited from ever moderating again.

Never advised the audience to not interfere.

Allowed shouting by Tour.

Stepped in to help Tour make an argument.

Yes, he should have asked Dave not to attack the audience (Dave wouldn't have had to of moderator did his job)

[blue-cuboid]

0:00 Intro
1:38 James reframing debate with his five prompts
2:22 Sidenote about ad hominem
4:04 James's opening statement
9:02 Chalk writing antics
11:02 (1st prompt) Polypeptide synthesis
16:00 Sidenote about reading paper titles
17:08 1st comment by moderator: NMR spectrum of ribose-borate vs ribose
18:29 Dave's response
23:29 (2nd prompt) Polynucleotide (esp. RNA) synthesis
28:58 David Deamer's comments on nucleotide synthesis
30:32 2nd comment by moderator: early vs modern RNA
31:25 More about peptide synthesis
32:56 Loren Williams's comments on prebiotically plausible synthesis of polypeptides and polynucleotides
36:59 (3rd prompt) Polysaccharide synthesis (esp. via enzymes)
39:38 Sidenote about when talking points were said in the past
40:59 Early vs modern enzymes
42:27 Chemical purity vs natural synthesis
43:29 Homochirality
43:39 Note about scripting prompts
46:20 3rd comment from moderator: mixing up terminology
48:26 (4th prompt) specified information/complexity
53:13 Systems chemistry (+ evolution arising from chemistry)
53:43 Sidenote about reading from a script
54:38 James's rant about bringing dead cells back to life
56:27 James's denial that ribozymes can self-replicate
59:24 Peak of chalk antics
1:01:06 James Attwater's comments on ribozyme autocatalysis
1:16:03 Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo's comments on prebiotic systems chemistry
1:27:57 Loren William's comments on systems chemistry
1:31:00 Q&A
1:31:17 Amino acids: activators; abiogenesis with a subset of amino acids
1:33:53 Self-replicating ribozymes
1:35:14 James's treatment of his graduate students
1:36:14 What Dave and James admire about each other's scientific careers
1:39:40 Why James doesn't submit work to peer review
1:42:01 Sidenote about critiques of OoL research
1:43:54 Conclusion on James's behavior
1:44:20 Reactions (Discovery Institute, commenters, Rice University)
1:46:57 Final remarks

[FTFEOfficial]

So, James lied?

I never would have guessed