Call it a game if you like but it's the game that forms the basis of all law and legislation in a any democratic society.
Let's recall that "it" is what you call a debate. Do you believe Donald Trump won "the debate" in 2016? If you can stomach that one how about Adolph Hitler in 1932?
All games are practice for societal skill sets.
Generous interpretation.
If you aren't willing to play by the rules, if you aren't willing to
risk losing, then you aren't really practicing for the real thing- which in the case of debating is democracy.
You're right I'm not practicing for democracy, I'm trying to find the truth. It's not a game to be practice at something real, it is the real thing. It's called debate.
If I wanted to "win" democracy I would act like a politician. I would never expose my widely unpopular opinions, I would pretend to agree instead of picking at contradictions and mistakes, I would subtly manipulate people by making them feel especially appreciated or victimized even when I believed no such thing.
It's an experiment I've done, my theories on it were 99% accurate and it made me feel dirty. You may continue to play your game without me, I garner no satisfaction from it. Please continue to insinuate that I'm a coward for not participating, every time you do is another opportunity to remind any reader that ad populum is a fallacy.
In the mean time, perhaps you would like to explain why I should trust the FBI as an authority on QAnon when they have so often displayed either incredible incompetence or else malice... such as when they paid an accused Russian spy in regards to an investigation over evidence he planted at the ultimate behest of the Clinton campaign.
If one man's lies can cause the FBI to generate enough unfounded chatter to keep the russiagate collusion hoax alive for multiple years; what does it take to mischaracterise a small minority internet community? A single post wouldn't surprise me.
