On reasons for not debating

Round at Talking Philosophy Julian Baggini was asking for opinions on whether he should agree to debate with David Irving. Most commenters advised him not to. The post (previously here) seems to have been taken down, but Ophelia at Butterflies and Wheels has this excerpt from it (as well as a possible clue to why the post is no longer extant). Julian wrote:

The issue for me is not about whether Irving should be allowed to air his views: I think he should. The serious issue for me is whether it is right to give people with such views a prominent public platform, thereby legitimising them in some way. In theory, it sounds nobler to always fight the truth out in public, but we surely can't ignore the fact that the attention someone gets has as much, if not more, of an impact than what we actually say when we debate them.

I agree with all the commenters who said that Julian shouldn't debate with Irving, and I agree with him that this isn't a free speech issue. Irving has rights of free speech and he is entitled to use them, even if it is to propagate falsehoods. I also agree with Julian that one shouldn't provide someone with Irving's views a platform from which to express them. One certainly has no obligation deriving from the principles of free speech to do so. But that isn't the issue here either since the platform wasn't in Julian's gift; as I recall from what the post said, he and Irving had been invited to speak in a university context. Third, although 'fight[ing] the truth out in public' is something we all have a certain duty to do, honouring this duty doesn't require anyone to accept Irving as an interlocutor. Falsehoods about the Holocaust can be combated in both speech and writing without any need to speak face to face, or in the same forum, with those who actively put them about. Finally, I don't think the argument that to debate with someone like Irving gets them attention - the oxygen of publicity, as Ophelia says - is the decisive thing either.

Suppose that you're invited to debate with David Irving, that you are yourself only slightly well known (if that), and that you've heard that if you decline the invitation it will be extended to someone very well known, or even famous, and that he or she is quite likely to accept it, so ensuring that the debate, and through it David Irving's views, will get much more publicity than they would have got had you accepted the invitation. You might still want to refuse it. Speaking for myself, I would in these circumstances still refuse it. By such refusal one says that there are certain people and certain views to whom and to which one is not willing to extend the courtesy of a discussion in which one treats one's interlocutor and his or her repugnant opinions as if they deserved to be taken seriously. There are different ways of opposing something you believe to be poisonous. Arguing against it is one way; but treating it as 'unclean' and its purveyors as contemptible is another.