Terrapin never said he agrees with banning poor debaters.

Riiight, then what was he agreeing with? >:O Your clarification of your previous post? That needed "agreement"? >:O

What's there to agree with?! >:O — Agustino

"the irony of asking how to end stupid debates on a board that doesn't concern itself with promoting proper debates." I was agreeing that that is ironic.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/78033

It seems to me as if a lot of debates in the public arena are stupid. — Andrew4Handel

Most of them are. Most people are more interested in advancing their agendas than honestly exploring the issues. Reality is complex and often murky, so when you see two polarized perspectives banging it out it's usually the case that each has some validity but overall both viewpoints are broadly erroneous.

"You're partisan hacks who twist facts until they cohere to a pre-existing viewpoint. All whilst hiding behind the seemingly respectable label of academic. I despise you and people of your ilk on both sides of the aisle."

There's a remark of Frank Ramsey's I often think of -- I think he was talking about aesthetics, but it seems to apply more broadly. He said too many arguments have this form:
Philosopher A: I went to Grantchester yesterday.
Philosopher B: No I didn't.

I didn't think he was talking just about this board — Terrapin Station

I think philosophy forums go beyond what I would expect from a debate elsewhere. I don't expect a public/media debate to contain indepth analysis and dissection of every term. I am rather asking for some basic logic, awareness of logical fallacies and so on.

I think now that I have studied philosophy I can see logical fallcies and insufficient reasoning more readily. Philosophy can be liberating but unfortunately it can end up making you feel trapped in a superficial unreflective world.

For debates to become better it must be regarded as cool to admit an error of whatever sort, and to openly welcome shifting your stance. For this you need to be non partisan in everything, and to accept that everything is on a grey spectrum in reality.

Unfortunately most people who are "cool" in this way are likely to be largely "correct" in what they present because they have made a fairly sound and rational journey to get where they are; others who argue against them are likely, statistically at least, to not have made such a journey and to be pretty much "incorrect", so that no opportunity arises for the "cool" person to show his cool.(In which case the "cool" person might consider being overly generous to the "uncool" person's argument, or a little self deprecating of their own argument. in an attempt to introduce "coolness" into the proceedings....)