The problems that created the need to say this is not a debate sub go back to reddit if I remember correctly. It was tras coming in and being disingenuous douches and just trolling with bad faith arguments. To call it "debate" is too kind, but in essence that is what it was attempting to appear as. But creating a rule around the idea that this is not a debate sub, it allows the mods to remove content like that as well as content from mras and "social conservatives", the kind who would rather say "make me a sandwich" than speaking meaningfully with a woman, that wants to argue with GCs over basic ideas. The rule might also be intended to, as opposed to just make available the option to, remove infighting withing strains of GC thought which has happened more than once. I am making a distinction between an interpretation of the purpose of a rule and an interpretation of the letter of the law of a rule.

Here Kai is not doing that. Kai is looking for ways GC people would address the topic, so in that sense I see it as debate-training and not debating. Kai is not coming here for debate but technique-sharpening amongst liked minded people. In the above examples, a fight is sought not help from an ally. The same could be said for our troll whom I LOVE to respond to, but I acknowledge annoys everyone. Since our troll never responds, instead doing the equivalent of walking into a room to fart and then run out of the room, they are not here for debate either, just trolling. But, there have been posters that roll like our troll does but then stick around and use various bad faith techniques to question responses. This is really the only kind of debate I've every seen from team QT or tras, where they try to ambush people with details or bs or exceptions or "the margins". Kai isn't doing that. Kai is not a stranger. So, a bad-faith poster can come on appearing to do what Kai is doing, but once the bad-faith responses come in, the proof is in the pudding as they say.

What would that proof be? Well, I think previous posts from Kai where discussion and clarification and variations on approaches (the kind Trent Horn discusses in my recent post in the GC guys sister-sub) are brought up, but no one is debating each other.

Another view on what proof there would be is: what debate is occurring? We can tell when a post is here for debate and not discussion or apologetics/debate training. Those are picking fights right away. We can tell when it turns into a fight, just as we can tell when good natured joking gets nasty and fists start flying-- but with words here. Debate has not happened here yet.

Even in our exchanges. I ask about the potential differences between apologetics and debate. I do not say "You are wrong and here's why" (open debate) or "Here's what's weak in your argument" (tra ambuse and chisel-away at the margins, bogus debate). I'm also not being disingenuous in my questions and I'm offering what I think are substantive views. We're discussing, not debating. I'm not offering a firm position and I'm not chipping away at your position, which parallels the second sentence in this paragraph. We're also not egaged in apologetics or debate training, but I think Kai is doing that.

I don't think I missed anything. If I did, let me know.