This question is motivated by the following reasons:
Not many pieces exist that argue against the Orthogonality Thesis (on LessWrong, or anywhere, to my knowledge). Of those that do, none have received positive feedback.
Commenters on those pieces have stated that it is not, in principle, impossible that they would up-vote such a piece, only that none thus far have met or exceeded their standards for what they would consider to be a successful attempt (even if they were not ultimately persuaded by the arguments).
What attributes would a "successful attempt" (even one that does not persuade you to disbelieve the Orthogonality Thesis) have?
Thoughtfully engaging with the existing body of literature might help. Show that you understand the claims, the counter-claims, the arguments for and against. Show that your argument is novel and interesting, not something that has been already put forward and critiqued numerous times. Basically, whatever makes a good scientific paper.
It would bring on an enormous amount of new evidence, since the position of the orthogonality thesis is so strong (rather than arguing from some vague and visibly false philosophical assumptions).