>>>The task for you was to provide facts and arguments why that is a bad idea. Or 'invite' the opponent to come with facts and arguments why it is a good idea. A simple statement that 'we should do this or that' is not good enough in a debate. It is merely an expression of a wish, and that's not enough to win the debate. Show the opponent (and the co-readers) that invalid facts and arguments are used. And formulate your own facts and arguments. Do not merely state that the other is stupid. Use facts and arguments.
>>>
>>>I know it's the more difficult way to go, but it's also the more correct way.
>>
>>It's way more than just 'difficult', Peter. Whenever someone points up 'facts' to back an argument, generally around here those facts are simply dismissed out of hand as the work of the ignorant and biased "left/right" [choose one]. "Facts" can only be used in a debate in which the principals are tolerant and open minded to views that may not be their own. I see far too little of that in many of these threads, frankly.
>
>You may be right, Alan, but there is also the possibility that something is presented as a fact where actually it isn't a fact at all. A possible solution is to ask the opponent to agree on this and that as being a fact, perhaps even before discussing any further. (And even then it may well be that both/all are wrong.) What will also help, is giving some sort of evidence, for example a reference to a trustworthy source, trusted by all who participate in the debate.

That's the crux. I've yet to see such a situation here. The right will not accept as trustworthy any source trusted by the left and the left will likewise not accept any source trusted by the right. Maybe there is such a source out there, but following the discussions that have gone on here over time, I despair of ever seeing it. I realise that right and left are not fixed terms, but I think you understand what I'm getting at.

>
>What we often see happen, is that person A claims X, without giving evidence or at most referring to source K that cannot easilly be confirmed to be reliable. Then person B claims that X is not true, without giving evidence or simply stating that source K is unreliable. Next, person A denies that source K is unreliable.
>The fact is that person B has indeed declared that source K is unreliable, where the truth is that it cannot easilly be confirmed that it is reliable. Feel the difference? On the other hand, person A should probably not have referred to source K at all. Ideally, only sources that can easilly be confirmed to be reliable, should be used in a good debate.
>
>It is indeed more than difficult to do a good debate. Hopefully, we are all learning here.