The cases of debate-broism that are being discussed all seem like the poster got angry. Obviously that's not a blank cheque to say whatever you want, but on the other hand this seems a bit reminiscent of libs' obsession with civility. Slurs, abuse, accusations, these should all be bannable no matter how heated somebody gets, but name-dropping a few logical fallacies or refusing to concede a point, does that really need mod enforcement?
As an example during I got into an argument with somebody here about whether pornhub going registered-user-only was a good or bad thing. It did get a bit heated and I think we were both convinced at some points that the other person was arguing in bad faith. But I don't think either of should have been banned. Somebody else in the same thread got extremely mad and accused the person I was arguing with of being a pedophile. They did get banned, and I think that's reasonable.
The cases of debate-broism that are being discussed all seem like the poster got angry. Obviously that's not a blank cheque to say whatever you want, but on the other hand this seems a bit reminiscent of libs' obsession with civility. Slurs, abuse, accusations, these should all be bannable no matter how heated somebody gets, but name-dropping a few logical fallacies or refusing to concede a point, does that really need mod enforcement?
As an example during I got into an argument with somebody here about whether pornhub going registered-user-only was a good or bad thing. It did get a bit heated and I think we were both convinced at some points that the other person was arguing in bad faith. But I don't think either of should have been banned. Somebody else in the same thread got extremely mad and accused the person I was arguing with of being a pedophile. They did get banned, and I think that's reasonable.