I’m not sure who to trust when trying to figure out what's true. I know you should just trust whichever source is more reliable, but I don't understand why that's actually a good method of figuring out the truth. Usually there's a controversial alternative view on something that “debunks” why the popular view isn’t true, but then you also have writings that “debunk” why those controversial side’s debunks are invalid. At this point it seems like I should agree with the popular viewpoint because they out-debunked their opponent, but what if it were to keep going. What if the “alternative” side then debunks that rebuttal. It seems like all that really matters is who gets the final say, which doesn't seem like a valid way of knowing who's right. Maybe this is actually correct and the reason the debunks don't keep piling on is because the source that had the last word really was correct and the opponent can’t debunk it back? Or is it as invalid as it seems, and if so, how else do I figure out what's true?