The thing about debate is that it’s supposed to be a fair and reasoned and good-faith discussion about The Thing. It’s supposed to be two people of differing opinions attempting, through discussion, to find the truth.

But debating with cult members and trolls only mimics this. It’s a nice shiny flower that also happens to be a praying mantis with bodyparts that look like petals.

You’re not arguing with them about The Thing. You’re arguing with them about their opinion of The Thing. Which is 1) entirely in their control, and 2) really isn’t particularly important to you.

Unless you make it important to you.

Like, by conflating it with the thing it purports to be.

The instant you get invested, the instant you feel the need to convince THEM, the instant convincing them becomes synonymous with successfully defending your own beliefs, they have a hold on you.

And they will use that hold to do what predators do.

They’re not interested in being convinced. They’re not interested in finding the truth. They’re interested in arguing you out of everything you believe using the debate process you’ve foolishly placed your faith in and staked your positions on, and using your own convictions that being right makes you a superior debater and/or that being a superior debater makes you right, to convince you that you owe it to them to change YOUR mind, because you chose to avail yourself of their supposed willingness to change THEIRS.

You can, actually, lose a debate while still being right. Debate is a skill contest, not a magical truth-detector. You don’t owe anyone to change your beliefs to their tune just because they’re more skilled at debating, more sophisticated at finding arguments, or just more unwilling to concede points.

But they’ll try to convince you otherwise. In fact, they run on your entrenched beliefs otherwise.

To say “I still don’t accept this” and walk away, to keep your own autonomy at the cost of mockery on a level you probably believe, takes strength and savviness few people possess, and they absolutely prey on that too.

It’s very helpful to be able to be honest with yourself about whether you’re actually willing to believe/accept their position, and fair to your prospective opponent to avoid debates (or at least avoid calling it a debate) over something when you absolutely are not willing to accept the opposing position. Because being fair in a real debate means you risk accepting the opposing position.

And if you’re the only one being fair in a debate only you believe is real, you’re taking a huge-ass risk with only purely illusory payoff.

The trap is that they’re offering you the illusion of an opportunity to defend your beliefs by convincing them, at the cost of you risking your beliefs on the strength of your ability to convince them. And then they use their refusal to be convinced as the “impartial” judge of victory.

The fight is not what you think the fight is, and it’s time to walk away.

bigots and alt-righters and fuckheads of all stripes have been known to get very very good at debate-the-art-form. ESPECIALLY real-time debates where they can hit you with statistics they came prepared with and move on before you can analyze the validity of their sources. this is their bread and butter. they can win without being right or even saying things that are true.

letting them on the stage with you 1 risks a loss no matter how right you are, 2 platforms them and their argument. that’s literally what platforming means. and even if you DO win, youve done a lot more to put THEIR arguments in front of YOUR audience than you have to defeat the bigots with facts and logic or whatever the hell you thought you were accomplishing.

at best you’ll do a really good job preaching to the choir and all your followers will clap. but it’ll be at the price of putting these arguments in front of eyes they wouldnt otherwise have reached, and you’ll change probably zero bigoted minds in the process.