This whole premise where two junior academics come some conclusion and then the debate is apparently over, just lol when there's still lots of debate around this topic by serious professors in an actually scientific arena, many of them who've kept their beliefs secret because of not rocking the boat (another leak).
This new "liberal" or radical centrist but authoritarian line of thinking where you just smear opponents as truthers or conspiracy people and then ignore all the leaks and data, the money, the networks of power - what was once known as classic journalism, is a bit dystopian in my eyes, because people apparently aren't sceptical about the state / security state / big corp and the nexuses between them anymore and what was "local paper level research journalism" is often today seen as "you are a conspiracy lunatic" - i think much of this has to do with stuff like Q, and it makes you wonder how "grassroots" (astroturfing) that movement really was, because of how conveniently it has destroyed the reputation of anyone asking non state approved questions.