TreadOnMe [none/use name]

A debate pervert is someone who worships debating in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ as an universally acceptable, and mandatory moral method to reach truth and consensus.

The general consensus of leftists on this forum is that debate is not a universal good, it is a contextual good. While there can be value in ‘debating’, most of the time a debate is simply a demonstration of rhetorical skill, not a pursuit or demonstration of the accuracy or truth of an argument. Basically, debating can be a good form of entertainment, but it is generally a demonstration of performance, not investigation.

Now the particular reasoning for this stance depends on the individual leftists. Most anarchists do not believe in universal public debate because some ideas should inherently not be debated (such as genocide or classicide). Most Marxists do not believe in universal debate in a public forum because your ideology primarily stems from your relationship to your material conditions, to put it simply, it is difficult to get someone to understand a truth when their paycheck requires them to believe the opposite.

Axiomatic qualms aside, there is also the problem of the knowledge gap. For example, professional debate clowns such as Destiny and Jordan Peterson have claimed to be able to ‘debunk’ Marxism, but then demonstrate that they don’t even know basics such as the M-C-M cycle, the general calculation for LTV or even what ‘materialism’ is. How can you have a debate when you have to spend the whole time educating your supposed peer on the basics of what you are supposed to be disagreeing about?

All that said, we can then come to an idea of when a debate IS useful. Debates are useful as demonstrations of rhetorical skill and wit (as mentioned before), but they can also be useful as pursuit of truth if and only if the following qualifications are met.

1. Terms and definitions are agreed on beforehand.
2. Both the audience and the presenters are working from the same common body of work.
3. Disagreements are rooted in good faith analysis of the previous two issues.
4. Impartial moderation is present.

Additionally, if one is in a political party seeking power and you are asked to debate your position or explain yourself within the party apparatus, there is a moral obligation to do so to further the group interest. There is no such moral obligation here.

Most of the time, almost none of these four categories are present in online forum ‘debates’, which means that we (and you) do not actually owe each other anything in terms of moral obligation to seek truth through debate in these online discussions. Unlike if we were in an actual leftist political party, it is a privilege, not an obligation that we explain our reasoning and position to you.

What, in particular, do you, OP, think a state is? Also, we are not debate perverts here, but we are willing to have discussions and disagreements.