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.