Nature of Online Debate

What 'debate' are they talking about? It's a free for all shouting match.

Debate the argument, not the argumentator.

Why not show the arguments and allow the debate to happen? Maybe we'd all learn something.

I’ll consider it a debate when your arguments consist of more than “Nope”

You're trying to stifle the debate by debating. Good luck with that.

As long as the LLM Moderator deems it safe discourse let the best idea win! I'd love a debate between 2 highly-accurate and context-aware LLMs - if such a thing existed.Otherwise it would be like reading HN or Reddit debates where 2 egomaniacs who are both wrong continually straw man each other with statements peppered with lies and parroted disinfo, aint got time for that.

Explain why someone should spend time debating with you?

tldr:Debates are essential in a free society.1. Do not hope to change people’s core stance. [...] One of the core reasons to debate is to find common ground.2. Let people’s character [or motives] out of the debate.3. Shy away from authority-based arguments.

Simply put, demands for evidence where none is required derail conversations. By trying to re-orient the conversation toward a debate, you are stifling any kind of contemplative progress. Practically, debates of this style are not dialectical and do not pursue synthesis or truth per se. Look around HN at any hour of any day to see people continually conflate the two. Folks who employ this and related tactics do little more than stroke their superiority complex with logical gotchas.

Not entirely sure what you expect people to "argue back". Why not dial down the hostility and request a debate instead?