It's not like I'm against debating things in public either, I just think it's important to know when to stop. For example, let's say NASA had added some easy/intuitive proof to their comment that people can do at home if they want to. That's cool, right? So now you get a irrational response back from the other side. Do you respond? I guess the question is how often can you respond before you end up doing more harm then good.
I can make up any bullcrap and if any I mean any new source picks it up it's free advertising for me regardless how right they are.
You might have a problem with ensuring the discourse is reasoned in the first place. For anything important enough, at least one side is likely to use every sleazy trick in the book, from logical fallacies to plain slander. What may have began as a search for truth (or facts) can quickly turn into a dirty rhetoric match. In such a situation, the outcome mostly depends on debating skills.
There is a growing likelihood for people in this country to feel that their ideas are so morally correct, that opposing viewpoints should be ignored or suppressed. Two very common arguments I hear that seek to accomplish this are that a debate should not be had because they don't want to create a "false equivalency" (the argument you're making here), or that they don't want to provide the other party with a "platform." There is no such thing as a false equivalency in debate. In reasoned discourse, foolish ideas should be exposed and dismantled.