In a spirited debate over mask efficacy last evening, my intelligence was questioned by saying scientific consensus, published research, and leading experts prove I’m wrong.

About an hour in, I said, “You haven’t asked why I know masks are ineffective, and you haven’t asked what experiments my colleagues and I have performed to test mask efficacy. You instead turned to proving I was wrong because everyone already knows masks are good. Your immediate incredulous rhetoric means you aren’t open to new, contradictory information. Anyone who can demonstrate masks are ineffective are by nature already wrong. This attitude troubles me.”

The reply was, “Okay, I’m listening. Prove it.”

I offered a more reasonable course that wasn’t reliant on starting out “wrong” and then building a defense to earn acceptance. In lieu of this, I suggested she ask me questions from her own knowledge to ascertain the validity of my claim.

She wouldn’t agree to this alternative course, so I ended the debate.