It's sad how easy it has been to get you to write paragraphs and paragraphs

I can type fast. What may take long for you, is quite quick for me. It's a habit I've practiced for many years.

Furthermore, you're signaling your ignorance to why debate is good, even when it's not being conducted properly. Debate (whether good or bad), enables a man to practice his habits in good debate. Debate lets a man practice his arguments and explore his ideas. Debate lets the audience hear different viewpoints. Debate lets a man challenge his ideas against an intractable opponent, to truly determine if he is correct. Ideas, like men, are honed through hardship and challenge. Weak men hold weak ideas, and for the same reasons.

Since you shirk away from any challenge to your views, since you refuse to participate in a thorough examination of your ideas, if you refuse to challenge your own ideas, if you refuse to participate in good debate, you inherently weaken your own position, because all of your ideas are unchallenged, unexplored, unreflected, and weak.

about how much you really want to engage in violence against people that want to unironically be left alone and engage in voluntary and consensual co-operation.

That's not what I've been advocating at all. All groups, regardless of size or context, must be homogeneous. Government should, at whatever level its at, only enforce rules along the lines of agreed homogeneity of the people it rules.

However, this position can only work so long as the government and the people (nation) are healthy and uncorrupted. This isn't the case currently, as the people in power hate us, have been intentionally propagandizing our own people against us, have been importing people who are not like us, and are intentionally diversifying us in philosophy, habits, traditions, language, religion, politics, morality, and race. In every conceivable way, the people in power are taking away our natural homogeneity, and destroying it, to weaken our collective bonds, to weaken us, to make us easier to control. Thus, it becomes necessary for people to enforce their views upon the wider whole, to rebuild the homogeneity that was lost, and fight back against the intentional diversification of their people, and violently fight back against the people doing it (and their supporters). In this, I openly admit and condone the use of violence, because violence isn't inherently wrong. You will, of course, latch onto this as a perceived victory, without acknowledging the reasoning.

I'm sorry you refuse to see this, because you're holding onto one facet of this argument with such a fervent stranglehold that you refuse to see the bigger picture.

Like it's clear that I'm not reading this because I don't care what you have to say

You further admit that you're brainrotted, incapable of reading or engaging in any content longer than 15 seconds, and hold inherently weak unchallenged ideas.

but you're so hell bent on winning an internet argument that you bite the bait every time.

Good debate requires all parties be civil, logical, honest, and pursue truth above all else. In this way, even if one side, or both sides, is proven wrong in the debate, in part or whole, they can accept the truth openly and proudly. That's how you "win" a debate, by coming closer to the truth. Only fools think they "win" a debate by the standards you profess. But, to be fair, there are a great many fools in modern society that think that's how debates are won, so at least you're not alone in your foolishness.

And to repeat what I said above, which you will also not read, I intentionally challenge my ideas in long form debate, because I don't want to hold weak ideas, I want to know if I'm right or wrong, I want to explore my ideas, I want to practice my views and arguments. I want my ideas to be strong and practiced. I want to be sure. This takes time and length. It's identical to exercise, which takes a lot of time and dedicated effort. You can't do short form exercise and see massive results. It takes time and effort, which you actively refuse. People's views shape their entire reality, so I must also reason that you're also fat, unfit, unpracticed, and lazy.

Which funnily enough shows just how poorly you would do at any sort of "governing" since you can't even show enough self control to not respond to obvious bait.

On the contrary, my habits would make me worlds better at governing than someone like you, who are an admitted fool. And, weirdly, you tacitly admit that all of your responses have been "bait", meaning that you've been behaving disingenuinously this entire time, thus every word you said must be taken as a lie or manipulation, in one regard or another.

In any case, I don't care if what you said was "bait". All of the above reasons for why debate is needed and meritous, that I outlined above, still work when you engage an opponent in a debate who is "baiting" or being disingenous. Most of the best, long form debates I've ever had have been with people similar to you, practicing bad debate, who prioritize themselves above truth, who cling to their views like an anchor, who would rather die than admit wrong in any form, who are being disingenuous.