Should skeptics stop debating Alex Tsakiris?

Alex Tsakiris has recently debated the physicist Sean M. Carroll on his podcast Skeptiko.

http://ift.tt/1YkWbCc

I don't quite understand why these skeptics occasionally still choose to appear on his podcast. They are playing right into his hands. Previous skeptics who have been fooled into appearing have complained about how dishonest this podcast is.

Alex edits these interviews and cherry-picks through the comments and questions. He uses ad-hominem attacks and makes fun of the things that skeptics say. He entire intention is to try and make skeptics on his podcast look like fools and idiots. He then publishes this on his website. Paranormal believers then post on his forum laughing at these skeptics. It seems utterly redundant. Is this what the world has come to?

Il give an example:

Alex Tsakiris questions Carroll about an experiment the parapsychologist Dean Radin performed:

Quote:

What I thought about was this recently published research by Dr. Dean Radin. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2012. Then it finally and really, quite convincingly, with a P-value of 10 to the minus 6 or something, shows that consciousness–that is, a human being that was instructed to focus on that photon beam–can actually collapse the quantum wave function.

Carroll responded:

Quote:

Yeah. I think that’s just not right. I think that is not something that 99.9 percent of working physicists would say is actually true.

Leading a snarky reply from Alex (which was not on the interview with Carroll, but edited into the interview on his website):

Quote:

For anyone who’s listened to Skeptiko before and heard this kind of nincompoopery, Sean’s not saying anything new, but it’s still stunning. First, Carroll uses the infamous I-wouldn’t-believe-it-even-if-it-was-true thing. He admits he’s never read Radin’s research, but is adamant in denouncing it. (note to Sean: I know you’re the Harvard physicist, you’re the Cal Tech professor, but that’s not how science works–you have to look at the data before you pass judgement on the experiment) Next, Dr. Carroll minimizes the fact that Radin’s paper passed peer review at a respected academic journal. It’s a silly claim given that his career relies on a functioning peer review system, especially since he sits on the editorial boards of similar journals. It’s silly, but not surprising. As a final volley, Carroll adds the ol’ “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” thing to his argument. This is terribly unscientific argument in general, but in this case it’s especially inappropriate because the double slit experiment has been contemplated and debated for 100 years by the biggest names in physics. But it’s not like Dr. Carroll let’s facts get in the way of a good stump speech.

Of course Alex edits these comments into the interview, after the interview has taken place. Carroll does not get a chance for further input on the question. I find this dishonest. Wouldn't Carroll be annoyed by this? Alex also tries to embarrass Sean Carroll by claiming he isn't open-minded enough to read through the NDE literature.

What is the point in skeptics continuing to debate this man? In fact there was no 'debate', it just seemed an attempt for Alex to get Carroll on his podcast and try and downgrade him. Any comments?