I looked at the rules, nothing says "no meta posts" last I checked, so nyah.
As the post title suggests, I've noticed in the past two days that many posters here are under-educated in debate. Not educated in formal debate, nor in casual debate, nor in internet debate. And all three are very different things, but all three I've seen people failing it.
People are arguing with others when they're both defining completely different topics but never disclosing this to the opposite side. People are arguing ad hominem. They are arguing from appeal to authority, appeal to morality, and appeal to disgust, instead of appealing to logic. Emotional pleas abound.
Being clear and reasonable, pointing out your views without ambiguity, not strawmanning their points, these are all important if you want to be taken seriously. Likewise, you should be able to take a position opposite your own, and argue its merits: If it is worth arguing about, then clearly there must be an opposing viewpoint that people ascribe to, and you should know your enemy. In fact, you should be able to make BETTER arguments than they can about their own side. How can you know your own view is legitimate if you have not explored the alternative's best offerings, after all?
Your aim in a debate is not usually to convince the other person, it is to convince readers, and audiences. They strongly believe their points, else, they wouldn't be there arguing them (except maybe as practice). Your arguments should be logically consistent within themselves, and with what you present as your own image, so to audiences you seem both intelligent and sincere. If your opponent clearly does not believe in their own argument, it will sabotage itself, you can point it out if you feel like it, but that does not damage the point they are making, it merely points them out as a hypocrite. A drug addict can tell you that drugs are bad, even as they're taking them, hypocrisy does not invalidate a point being made. Argue points, not people.
And if your goal is internet argumentation, then you should just link them a rickroll disguised as a study link like this: https://academic.oup.com/esr/article-abstract/18/2/199/586153, laugh at them, and move on with your life, because internet argumentation is ultimately just a contest of who can troll more, cogent points are not useful or expected.
So let it be resolved that: People here are unskilled at debate. Change my mind, by showing you are. Debate me on the topic that you are, indeed, able to have a debate, a discourse, a Socratic Dialogue, anything, without falling into every single pratfall in the book.
Let's discuss anything you want, in whichever of the three styles you want, and practice it. Not loli shit though, we've been doing that for days and it is clear people can't behave themselves over it and the goal is to practice, not to preach. No hard feelings to any users, because people will possibly be taking positions they themselves do not hold. Pick a topic, rant about why it's good or bad for a bit, and everyone else here will pick apart your argument, whether or not they agree with it. Goku is a Mary Sue. Chocolate is bad for society. We should model our ruling structure after lobsters. Anything.
Aww, TheImpossible1, you pick the best subjects! You're a treasure of the board.
Alright! Casual style. So I'll assume the first bit is metaphorical, a framing lens. I think the obvious counter-side would boil down to the argument of "don't give your opponent weapons that they could use on you down the line", but the obvious counter-argument to that we both know exists is "they're making weapons anyways", because, we both know, they are.
The reason they gained so much power, is people blindly believed them. As you say, your first solution to come to mind is to lock them out of society, because society is just arbitrarily believing women. If they didn't, such a measure wouldn't come to mind. For purpose of debate, this seems to me like a false assignment of blame. The male simps of all eras share not just equal measure, but greater measure, for the feminist incursion, and their isolation and exclusion from decision-making processes would allow the highly contrasting opinions of the feminist movement to play shai'tan, to play the opposite advocate to existent society, without the risk of those opinions being taking as something inscrutible. Thus you can keep in mind the opposing viewpoints, with minimalized risk.
Oddly for a gynophobic person, your arguments often assign too much agency to women, and near zero to men. Women plan and plot and scheme, and men merely react to the incoming stimuli. Altering the second part of that equation seems to me to be a better solution that addressing the first.
Wolves play an important role in ecosystems, even if killing wolves is a quick solution to a problem, it can lead to ecological issues down the line. Not letting bleating sheep congregate around the wolves resolves a farmer's problems almost as well, and doesn't risk the ecological balance as much.
Point to audience: Validate opponent's view, do not belittle it. Suggest alternative lines of thought, point out any gaps in evidence that may present themselves. Don't ever reject a premise out-of-hand.
That's a fair point, but in my opinion, the simps are a product of a feminized education, not a genuine political leaning like feminists. As such, it doesn't seem fair to blame them for the conditions of their childhood creating such pathetic pushovers.
Do we even need feminist opinions in society? Is there ever a situation where their voice makes things better?
Well, I just consider society as it stands today. Most men are conditioned by school and upbringing to pretty much worship women. If anyone is to be held accountable for this, is it really fair to place blame on those that were doomed from birth to be placed in a gynocentric system?
We can blame men for being cucked, but that isn't fair. Why not blame the people who are actively causing problems over those who passively allow it because their resistance was broken at the age of 11.
Hell, if I hadn't had a mother who fought the school for years to stop me getting drugged, I'd probably be a fucking Labour voter in the United Femdom or a fucking tranny, like most of my old classmates from primary, who are either one or the other. I'm not as old as everyone thinks I am, hence why I haven't achieved most of my stated goals for my life yet.