Well, so you deliberately ignored all the reasons I gave for not debating with a troll and pretending that the troll had an informed and honest position. So?
Hey! Dibble! Over here, the actual conversation? Leave that old tattered strawman alone, will ya?
Honestly, why pretend that I’m claiming he was intellectually dishonest because he “disagrees” with me? Have I said that, anywhere? Or have I given specific reasons?
Why, then, do you ignore the specific reasons and do battle against a strawman?
Wrong, and as already demonstrated, they run it in a military occupation-style setup. Hamas’ goals certainly have much to do with why security is still necessary, and much to do with whether anybody is or is not currently on a campaign of genocide against Israel and/or the Jewish people as a whole.
Moreoever, as you are again wilfully ignoring, the issue wasn’t just over RTF’s blinding ignorance of what’s actually going on over there, it was his trolling too. Or do you think that someone who has never read a document can honestly state what it applies to? :dubious:
How many fallacies does that statement contain? Should I start with the fallacy of equivocation, or are you just going to admit that the ANC and Hamas have virtually nothing in common?
Which, contrary to his imagination (which I see you don’t care to touch upon), the removal of settlers would not magically make the occupation go away, nor checkpoints go away, etc…
Sure, no redefinition of words is required if you’re just making up a definition as you’ve done. And, especially if you’re making up a definition to add maximum emotional impact (see: fallacy appeal to emotion) rather than using terms which are, ya know, accurate.
Or is Iraq currently in a state of “apartheid” because we have checkpoints there and US soldiers aren’t treated as Iraqis? I guess it’s “apartheid” because US forces in the Green Zone aren’t under Iraqi control?
Duh, citizens of one nation not under military occupation do not get treated the same as citizens of another nation under military occupation. Who’d a thunk it? :smack:
The real interesting question is what folks, like yourself, believe you’re accomplishing when you do your damndest to scuttle honest and accurate debate. One might also question why you apply such an absurd demonization to one military occupation, but not others.
One might also wonder why you take a military occupation, ignore that massive number of dissimilarities, and jam the square peg into the round hole labeled “apartheid”. And yet… you handwave away Hamas as no worse than the AFC. Certainly, like RTF, you can’t be bothered to “illuminate” the nature of groups like Hamas because, perhaps like RTF, you simply don’t know anything about them.
Or, perhaps it is telling that you need to do as much as you can to frustrate honest discussion, that you need to demonize a military occupation instead of looking at it with a nuanced position, and that you do your best to not only refrain from calling Hamas out on their genocidal ambitions, but actually compare them to the AFC.
But, as the bigot informs me, I am a “Jewish zealot” who believes that “us Jews” can never possibly do any wrong.
I’m sure that instead of calling my fiancee and her folks to wish them a Merry Christmas, I should be plotting. Plotting evilly. Over a tombstone.
Wait, I’ll get back to you astro. I have to go plot evilly over a tombstone and figure out some ways that I can blindly support “The Jews”. I have plotting to do, do you have any idea how much time some good plotting takes?!?
Goyim, no appreciation for organized worldwide evil.
Your incessant verbal diarrhea impresses nobody 'cept perhaps yourself. And it all boils down to: Israel does it, it’s fine.
Up yours with a rusty-triple-bladed dildo. BG,
No, I did not mean Zionist but just what I said. A Jewish zealot, Jewish-American if you’d like. After all, zealots come in all nationalities and I wasn’t specifically using the word to define him as a Zionist. Though he well might be.
Sorry - I’m not into that sort of thing. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. You go knock yourself out.
And for the record, my country fucks up all the time. That’s the unfortunate side-effect of its being inhabited by human beings.
Alessan, I think that the bigot’s stunning factual retort was directed at me, as he can’t actually argue anything on its merits. The last time, for instance, that he vomited up some YouTube video in GD, he had it slapped down on numerous factual errors, deliberate omissions of context, etc…
Then, he just decided to whine like a little dog that’s been beaten too much, and run for his kennel. He couldn’t touch on his cite’s factual innacuracies, you see, because I’m such a mean scary zealot.
Now, he has evidently to decidine whining like a whipped cur and has gone straight on to a case of bigotry induced apoplectic frothing.
The fact that, just a few posts up, I clearly stated that both “sides” have made mistakes and that a just and equitble two state solution should be the goal? Doesn’t matter to that bigot, he’s got some frothing to do at a “Jewish” zealot. Intersting, is it not, that I’m not an “American” zealot, or even a “Zionist” zealot. No… the bigot finds something meaningful in my cultural heritage.
Although, I’m sure like most racists, bigots, and assorted filth, he’ll be unable to actually elaborate on why. Being called a “Jewish zealot” by an angry stupid bigot doesn’t exactly bother me, but it is a reminder that even in today’s day and age, walking pieces of filth like him still exist. It’s like seeing a relic of the Dark Ages, spewing drunkenly all over the Dope.
It’s also interesting to watch the tide of stupid that’s rolling up onto the sand. Evidently it’s really hard for a lot of people to attack the argument on factual or logical grounds, and they’re reduced to silly little ad hominems. “Finn supported Israel, in context, on occasions X, Y, and Z. That means he’ll always support them no matter what!”
It should be obvious just how stupid, lazy, and intellectually dishonest such a tactic is. But, then again, judging by some of the crew we’re dealing with…
I’m not going to debate the issue at hand, one thing bothered me with the OP though:
The rule on troll calling in the Pit has changed, since then I’ve seen a few pittings and accusations about trollery, as it is with this OP, where the evidence seems to be that the OP argues that the person called troll is ignorant, dishonest, an idjit or whatever. But trolling is neither of those. Just because the rules change doesn’t mena you get to play with one more invective in your Box of Insults, using it as a synonym for ‘dumbass’.
Whoops, that should read “…he has evidently decided to forgo whining like a whipped dog…”
Not true, although RTF is most certainly a dumbass.
No, the reason I elaborated on in my OP is that he is willing to take a position, and stir up shit, about which he knows practically nothing. That coupled, for instance, with intellectual dishonesty shows that his desire is not for an honest debate, nor factual knowledge (as he refuses to retract any of his obvious lies).
So… someone who comes into a debate with the goal of dishonest discussion and stirring shit up, is a troll.
It’d be the same if someone came into a thread on US jurisprudence or particle physics of the situation in the ME. If someone doesn’t come into debate honestly, and they don’t care or know about facts or data, and their only goal is to cause conflict, they’re a troll.
My understanding is that a troll posts explicitly to cause outrage and gain a reaction from other posters. I’m not going to make any comment on the correctness of RTF’s claims, but I doubt very much that he does not earnestly believe that Israel is in some ways an apartheid state and that he does not earnestly want to convince others of the same.
You can argue that he’s a poor debater, but he’s hardly a troll.
Anyone who actually wants to debate the issue of whether using “apartheid” to describe the situation in the Occupied Territories is anything more than inflamatory rhetoric that only reveals the bias of the user is welcome to join the thread that spawned this one. The op here is that RTF is … well you can all read.
Actually I do not know if he is a troll, in that he may very believe what he posts. But he does make stuff up and presents as fact. He is willfully ignorant and unwilling to acknowledge his fictions. In the exchange that provoked this thread he begins the baiting with his use of “Ay-rab” and continues it with ignoring every attempt to make the point that the difference in status is not only not racial, it is not ethnic or cultural. It is the fact that they are not citizens but are instead denizens of an occupied area, who represent a real security risk to Israeli citizens. The question of whose fault and right wrong of how it got to be that way is immaterial to the question of whether the analogy to apartheid is at all apt. The post in question may have had a point or two to make, none very significant, but I must admit it hard to make out what they are admidst all the insulting baiting that he engages in. Together he and Sev do a remarkable job of stating things that are out and out lies without ever owning up to it or recognizing their ignorance. (for example his claim that the recent war in Lebanon and actions in the OT over the Summer were exclusively in reaction to a military attacks by Hizbollah and Hamas on military targets.) Together they continue to debate the question of whether or not Israel has done some wrong and stupid things in the West Bank, rather than the actual question at hand. Neither shows any evidence of wanting to actually engage in any constructive give and take.
Please note, there are others in that thread who I disagree with strongly but who I can still respect. The position is not the objection, the behavior is.
Troll? I don’t know. A close-minded willfully ignorant idiotic jerk? Oh yeah.
I haven’t read the thread and haven’t got the energy after all that Christmas food. It’s just that RTF contributes in many fora and I’ve never noticed trollish behaviour. Coming to a debate without all the facts or using an argumentative style does not a troll make.
Now, I don’t know if RTF was an asshat in that thread, I’m just concerned that if we cry troll too many times…
I’d qualify talking about a subject which you’ve only got tangential knowledge of, and using the most inflammatory terms possible as fitting under that metric. No?
Even if true, and I personally doubt that he actually believes that his intellectual dishonesty and general ignorance is going to convince anybody but the type of people who have already posted in this thread in support of his practices. But maybe he did, and judging from his supporters in this thread so far, he seems to have picked his niche quite well.
Even if that’s true, by the way, that he was deliberately cuasing shit 'for a good cause’I don’t believe that eliminates him from being a troll, The recent troll Bible Man, for instance, honestly believed that he had a direct connection to God and that everybody who read the Bible differently than he did were “heretics”, or what have you.
What marked him as a troll is the same thing that marks RTF as a troll: he pretended to be interested in debate, but ignored all factual refutations, just like RTF. He pretended that he was in the mood for an honest discussion, when all he wanted to do was to yank people’s chains and stir shit up, just like RTF.
In short, much like RTF, his goal was to crap all over a debate, facts and logic be damned, as he was going to stir up shit. For him, it was to save souls. For RTF it was for ‘best possible reasons’.
They were, and are, both trolls.
What’s the difference, in extreme cases? If I post in a GD on quantum mechanics, and do so in the most inflammatory terms possible… and then it turns out that I don’t even know what a photon is, what then? Have I not been arguing, from ignorance, in order to stir up shit?
How is that any different from someone like RTF, who can’t even be bothered to correct his lies, and argues for the sheer inflammatory thrill of stirring up shit? Even if he’s stirring the shit so that he can win converts.
Eh… I think we may just have to agree to disagree on that point. Once someone’s m.o. is “I don’t know or care what the facts are, but I’m prepared to be difficult!” Well, once that’s the case, I say they’re a troll.
If honest debate isn’t their goal, if learning isn’t their goal, if distorting the truth, arguing from ignorance, and causing conflict is the goal, why are they not a troll?
Thank you D. Yeah, I’d rather this thread didn’t just become a Pit version of the other. Folks who’d like to debate why the massive differences between apartheid and military occupation can do it in the other thread.
It is possible to support such a position logically and honestly, and I certainly don’t take issue with everybody’s conduct. Which is, of course, what this is about. Not simply that RTF supports an absurdity, but that he does so dishonestly, from a position of ignorance, with the desire to stir shit up.
I think he might very well, but in my view, that doesn’t mean he can’t be a troll too. It’s the tactics someone uses to debate, much like Bible Man did. I’m sure that BM believed that only he had communion with the “Holy Spirit” and that everybody else were a bunch of heretics. But that manner in which he argued made him a troll.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, the mods generally will err on the side of viewing a poster are merely stupid, or merely uninformed… but I can’t cleave to that. Someone who is uninformed, who has no desire to get the correct facts, who has no desire to argue honestly, and who is as inflammatory as possible… well, they certainly don’t serve a beneficial purpose.
I have to disagree on this point, however. I’ll take it up in the proper thread of course.
The point of a debate is not to convince the opponent that one is right, it’s to sway the onlookers. If I get into a debate with one of the resident theist conservatives here (and one of them I know and admire), I know I’m not going to make him a liberal unbeliever with my cunning arguments and smart logics. My hope is that Joe Doper, who’s undecided on the issue and lurking, will come over to my side.
Some people think that throwing around buzz words will do the trick. It seems as if you’re accusing RTF of doing that, and that is a valid argument. You being pissed off and calling him a troll might, or might not, have merit. For the sake of winning the original debate, I think you should’ve stuck with arguing his points in the original thread.
And yes, we’re gonna agree to disagree. And I’ll read the thread that promted this in the morning. Or later in the morning, it’s close to 3 a.m. here.
How about we hear – or read – from a “Self-hating” Jew? After all, it only comes to show that there’s some semblance of common sense on one of the two sides involved in this certainly upcoming genocide:
Mayhaps all things considered in the Palo-Israeli conflict, the issues in question are not so one-sided after all. Just a thought and hadn’t occured to the “Infalibles” such as FinnBis. Then again, no way, no how, anything escapes such intellects…or WMDs.
Perhaps, sometimes at least. But in my view, that still doesn’t mean that someone can’t troll and have a goal in mind of convincing the peanut gallery. I’m sure that Bible Man actually thought he was doing some good, some how.
Well, to be fair, not just that. As DSeid commented, it’s more of a pattern of dishonesty, willful ignorance, a refusal to retract statements that are proven false, etc…
Possibly true, but one cannot ‘win’ a debate against someone quite as intellectually dishonest as RTF is. If, for instance, you can point out how one of his analogies has a handful of factual errors, and he just keeps on trucking? Or when he makes up facts, but refuses to even acknowledge that they’re been refuted, let alone admit that he was wrong and retract? Or when he deliberately uses words however he wishes, despite ample evidence that he’s simply jamming concepts into holes in order to go for maximum inflammatory content? (Much like, as DSeid pointed out, how RTF continued to argue that there was some sort of racial basis at work here, when racial, ethnic, and cultural bigotry would all be functionally impossible, and the true issue was one of nation.)
Or, of course, when he claims that he is only interested in “illuminating” people, and in that case he cares more about the similarities than the massive differences between apartheid and military occupation, and yet can’t be bothered to learn let about alone decry a policy of genocide that’s still ongoing?
Or, that a document which he has never read, is not relevant to a discussion? I mean, honestly, that one still sticks in my mind… how can making a factual claim about a document that you’ve never even read by anything other that stirring up shit from a position of ignorance?
In my mind, there wasn’t any real purpose to continuing as if he actually intended to hold an honorable debate. I certainly wasn’t going to take his bait, or feed his trolling. Red, you starting to sober up you aging bigot you?
Let me illustrate, again, just how stupid you are.
First off, nobody has claimed that everybody who opposes Israel is an anti-semite. Nobody would call that guy a “self-hating Jew”, but it’s ever so cute how folks like you whine about how people will be called anti-semites. That happens, the whining that is, much more than people are actually called anti-semites.
You, of course, you’re a special case as you are a drunken idiot, a piss poor debater even when you don’t have the good sense to drink yourself into a frothy rage and you’re also a piece of shit bigot. Oh, and a whiney coward as you can never address anything I say of a factual or logical nature, just spew your Jew-hating bile all over me and attempt to evade with ad hominems. (How many times have you refused to touch on a factual or logical refutation because I’m “zealot”, you sodden coward?)
Moreover, bigot, there is no “certainly upcoming genocide” or the Israelis would have done it already. If there is to be an ‘upcoming genocide’, then partisan hacks like you will be part of why it happens. Luckily you’re as politically impotent as mentally impotent.
Speaking of your impotence, you might want to stop vomiting on yourself long enough to realize that you’ve already been called out in your lie that I simply “see no wrong” in Israel or “the Jews” as you would have it, you tiny little frightened angry little bigot, I do not see things in “black and white”, but boy oh boy isn’t is easy for you to attack me personally while running like a scared puppy away from the meat of my argument?
And as long as we’re on the subject of you being stupid, dishonest, and generally displaying all the qualities that your average bigot is simply oozing, it’s worth it to point out your monumental hypocrisy.
Like when, for instance, you posted a video in GD, I tore it to pieces on factual inaccuracies and a total lack of context, and you ran away like a frightened little coward, sobbing about how you simply couldn’t debate with a “zealot”. Because, for instance, someone who points out why Israel needs to maintain military rule is simply someone your alcohol ravaged brain doesn’t know how to deal with. So you vomit at me and belch and talk about how I’m just a “Jewish zealot” who believes that all of “us Jews” can possibly do no wrong.
You’re not a holder of a nuanced position, you dumb schmuck. You provide cites… which are startlingly one sided. You just now provide a list of quotes… all of which are opposing Israel and not one of which talks about how Israel can maintain security in Gaza and the West Bank.
You, you dumb bigot, are a caricature of what you hate.
Thank you. I remember that thread, and FWIW, I too think that Sevastopol is a troll and a rather boring one at that. I wouldn’t shed any tears were he to be banned.
If, however, you think that RTFirefly is remotely in the same league, you have no sense of proportion. I may not always agree with him, (though I usually do) but RTF is a long time member in good standing, and I have NEVER seen him exhibit any behavior that’s anywhere near trolling. You have yet to prove that he’s done so. Just because you disagree on this issue does not a troll make.
As for the subject of Israel vs. Palestine, is anyone who thinks that BOTH sides have acted like assholes therefore a troll in your eyes?
Honestly, at this point, no one will be satisfied until they’ve killed each other down to the last man. It’s disgusting to witness-violence begetting violence, the viscious cyle, all those cliches.
Oh, and one final thing-is it just me, or lately have we been getting people who weasel out of citing their claims by saying, “Well, no, I’m not going to give a cite because it’s just a well known fact!” Put up or shut up, FinnAgain. IIRC, RTF provided cites for his claims-let’s see you do the same. If you can’t, shut the fuck up already.
Learn to debate properly, or butt out and let the grown-ups talk.
Can you give a for-instance? I can’t recall your having done so in the linked thread.
Can you cite what response I ignored?
This was one of your problems in the linked thread - your failure to distinguish between the military occupation per se of the West Bank, and the colonization of the West Bank with its resulting dual system of government, supported by that military occupation.
A claim that the military occupation itself is necessary to Israeli security is completely irrelevant to the issue of what Israel has set up in the West Bank is fairly labeled apartheid.
It would help if I’d actually claimed that. Got anything better?
Your ‘constructive give and take’ amounted to an effort to widen the debate to things like this past summer’s conflicts between Israel and Hamas/Gaza and Hezbollah/Lebanon. I let myself be drawn out to a certain extent in the hopes that you were sincere in trying to make a point directly bearing on the West Bank/apartheid question. IMHO, you weren’t sincere, so I repeatedly explained my unwillingness to be drawn into a general ‘Israel v. all its adversaries’ debate, and reiterated my desire to stick to the issue defined by the OP in that thread. This seemed to upset you considerably. That’s not my problem.
Well, FinnAgain, leaving aside for now the personality of RedFury, what do you say to the quotes he provided? Is Desmond Tutu an anti-semite, or does he not know what apartheid is like, or is there something else that he is missing? I am old enough to remember when apartheid was called a necessary evil to prevent the spread of communism in southern Africa, and the people who were most vocal in calling Mandela a terrorist are now running the country.
I’ve read the Hamas Charter, and the only debate about it is whether it calls for genocide or ethnic cleansing. But saying they’re wrong doesn’t make their opponents right. I understand Israel’s need to protect herself through the occupation of the West Bank, but allowing settlers to occupy that area dosn’t seem defensive in nature. It seems more like a land grab.
Imagine a debate… let’s say it’s about particle physics. someone who hasn’t read the literature steps in, and decides to use the most inflammatory language possible. Along the point, he has several factual errors pointed out to him, but he just keeps on keeping on, and never changes his points an iota. Finally, someone calls him on the fact that he doesn’t seem to be there to debate honestly, and doesn’t seem to know what the heck they’re talking about. To prove a point, they mention the Experiment with Two Slits.
Our fictional poster has never heard of the EwTS, and wouldn’t know it from a pair of girls he was flirting with at a bar the other night. Still, unperturbed, he declared “The EwTS is totally irrelevant to the discussion.” He doesn’t even know what the EwTS is, how is that not stirring up shit without even knowing the facts?
Guin, you are, what, the third person to use that strawman? And I have responded to it, each and every time, by pointing out that folks should read what I actually said and/or I’ve pointed out what I’ve actually said?
Why do you feel a need to purposefully distort everything I said to a silly charge of “disagreeing” with me? Can you not touch on my actual argument? Because, you’ll notice, I did give very specific reasons. I also have no accused everybody who ever disagrees with me of trolling. Nor do I think that most people who have disagreed with me are trolls. So why not discuss what I’ve actually said rather than crafting a strawman and pretending that it’s me you’re engaged with?
What, exactly, are you basing that on Guin? As I’ve made crystal clear, the issue is not one’s ideas, although I defnitely disagree with many of those that some folks have. No… I have made very clear that the issue is one of intention: does one intent to debate honestly, or just stir up shit? Is one interested in learning, will they retract their positions when they’re proven factually incorrect, or are they only interested in causing conflict? Does one, for instance, hold their position based on knowledge, or are they ignorant or even willfully ignorant?
Remember the know-nothing who storms into a thread on particle physics?
Not true Guin, and this is part of why it’s so vitally important that only people who know what they’re talking about get into these debates, not people who know nothin’, don’t want to learn nuthin’, but boy are they ever interested in starting some shit.
Check the trend of polls coming out of Israel. Generally, the support for unilateral disengagement stands at about 50%. To be sure, there are jerks on the Israeli side, and there are Jerks on the Palestinian side.
Looking at why negotiations have failed, and why there continues to be violence now is not a simple question and it can certainly be explored in great depth and detail.
And that, of course, is part of what’s most severely damaged by all this dishonesty and bullshit. Who is served in the cause of getting at the nuanced truth when bigots like Red accuse folks who present an evidence-based rebuttal of being “Jewish zealots” who believe that they, along with the rest of their ‘race’ can “do no wrong?”
What honest solution to security for Israel and autonomy for Palestine can be had when people refer to the occupation, in all of its forms, as “Apartheid”? What will become of their silly little pretense if the settlements are all evacuated?
You will, for instance, notice in the thread that spawned this that RTF has now stepped up his intellectual dishonesty, and claimed that [
Now, it should be pointed out, first off, he is lying through his teeth. The discussion was about the occupation in the territories, an occupation which would continue with separate checkpoints and zones of travel regardless of settlements being there. Noticing that it would weaken his argument, he decided to pretend that wasn’t what was under discussion, that somehow the military occupation sans settlements won’t involve checkpoints and a seperate set of law for the Israeli troops stationed there.
Further, after calling the occupation “apartheid” he actually expects anybody to believe that he doesn’t believe that Israel should “unilaterally” end such an odious system? Was he lying when he claimed that it was Apartheid, or is he just a meely mouthed punk who doesn’t actually care that it’s apartheid, and wouldn’t want to see it dismantled immediately even if he did believe it was?
Dunno. We’ve also had a lot of lazy trolls who’ll spew all over a thread without reading up on it first. And no, things that are common knowledge should not have to be cited. Despite the complaining you do further down in this post, adults do not indulge children in their temper tantrums. And an ignorant troll crapping all over a thread and moaning about how you’re supposed to educate them on the topic they’re trolling is most certainly a spoiled brat of a child who isn’t to be pampered.
Wrong. I will not provide cites that water is wet, that the sun gives off heat, that the United States is situated on North America, etc… I will not humor a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum, and I will not baby adult-infants who can’t be bothered to learn about a topic they’re about to post in.
Especially not when they’re too petulant to just fucking google a document whose name I have already given. RTF called it something like “secret knowledge”, because he’s a lazy stupid troll who isn’t willing to learn a thing or two before spewing all over a thread.
What’s your excuse for not knowing the goals of the factions involved in the conflict?
I’m here to fight ignorance, not cater to it. Why, exactly, can you not do the research before holding a position on the debate?
If there’s something that’s actually in contention, or isn’t a well known fact, or is up for interpretation that’s different. But if you want a cite of all the organizations in the ME which have spoken out in favor of genocide against Israel/the Jews? Well, I’m not doing your homework for you. Either you’re able to participate in a debate, or you should read.
You want to open a GQ thread? I might post some in it. But neither in a debate nor in a Pit thread about a lazy troll will I reward such ennui.
So instead of “put up or shut up”, I’ll say “Google it and quit complaining at me. Do your damn job as a thinking adult and quit badgering me to spoon feed you basic information. If you don’t have basic information, don’t post. It’s just that simple.”
Your ability to recall isn’t that good it seems. Many of his claims were out and out lies, that not only did he not cite, but he refused to retract when it was shown that he was lying in order to stir up shit (ie. trolling). Or did you see a cite for his lie that the IDF targets civilians?
Wrong again. If you can’t educate yourself before posting to a thread, youuuuuu shut the fuck up, stop whining, and stop trying to pretend that your massive lack of energy is somehow my fault.
Posting to a thread that you know shit about it a jerk thing to do. Posting to a thread that you know shit about and trying to stir up shit is a troll thing to do. Whining that someone refuses to do your work for you, and won’t bring you up to a level of basic understanding which you refuse to do yourself? That’s just lazy and whiney.
If you want to make this personal, I’ll oblige. Just let me know. I will certainly not be taking advice on how to debate from you, nor should you talk about ‘grown-up’ debate. Grownups don’t ignorantly spew in an attempt to stir as much shit as possible. Grownups don’t support those who are spewing.
Now, I assume from your questions that you too don’t know much about the topic at hand. And while that’s fine, doesn’t some part of you realize that since you don’t, you can’t actually evaluate anybody’s argument on the topic? And that, since you don’t, you should probably actually just google it already instead of complaining at me about how you can’t be bothered to learn, and it’s my responsibility to teach you the very basics about the situation you’re already holding forth on? Does that not seem backwards to you? “Support position, then learn about it.”
Suffice it to say that feeding a troll, or taking a jerk’s bait is not debating properly. Nor is anybody obligated to spend 30 minutes educating the asshole posting on particle physics. The asshole should not be coddled, should not troll the thread without knowing what it’s about, and is most certainly in the wrong.