Should High-Profile Public Debates on Vaccines Take Place?

I have mixed feeling about the latest 'Joe Rogan vaccine debate' drama, and whether such an event should take place. I could see potential value for high-profile public debates on vaccines in the US. Trust in vaccination relies on scientists making a convincing case for them.
1/

— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) June 18, 2023

Such a debate could easily degenerate into a shouting match, with the perceived 'winner' and 'loser' based on who landed more gotchas, rather than the quality of their arguments. Thus, it would have to be be held within a tight framework, likely with real-time fact-checking.
2/

— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) June 18, 2023

Someone like Paul Offit, who's deeply knowledgeable, non-dogmatic and apolitical could be a great person to champion (childhood) vaccination in a robust, informed, yet nuanced way.
3/

— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) June 18, 2023

If he ripped apart the arguments of his opponent in such a high profile public debate, this could help restoring trust in (childhood) vaccination programs, which, I personally believe, would be a fantastic outcome.
4/

— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) June 18, 2023

I could also see value in scientists seen to be engaging with those holding radically different views in high-profile events, largely irrespectively of the debates's outcome (eg. no one changing their prior views), as long as the exchange remained respectful and informative.
5/

— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) June 18, 2023

The major, and possibly only, argument against holding such a high-profile debate to me is that critical societal decisions should not primarily depend on the whims of who was (subjectively) perceived to have 'won' or 'lost' in one-off, high-profile public debates.
6/

— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) June 18, 2023