[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Its not a debate if there are not counter arguments put forward. Threads that are full of people in agreement soon wither and die.

I would say its better not to debate at all than participate in a censored sham pretending to be a debate

Being fair to the mod team, threads have been pulled completely off topic by people who have, essentially, decided that they have no interest in the actual thread topic and have something to say about something else that's far more important or "makes a point". I get the impression that there's been an overall decision to try to stop this from happening, and it's a recent decision, which is going to take some time to "settle" and be implemented in the best way. For example, turning a fairly academic thread about Hitler into "Corbyn moans" I can't accept as anything other than total nonsense. On the other hand, I feel like bringing up Corbyn (or May, or any other high profile politician) in any thread about UK domestic politics is absolutely fair game,so maybe the policy is being implemented too heavy-handedly. I can't say for certain because I can't see which posts were removed.

My only other caveat would be... If its not bringing it up in a way that actually engages with the thread topic, but instead having exactly the same posts and points regurgitated ad nauseum in multiple threads, then is it really adding anything to the debate? If it's just more "whataboutism" then I can't really agree that it does. A full well thought out post, let's say, COMPARING Corbyn to the relevant people mentioned in a thread, whilst still actually discussing the thread topic is totally fine. Completely ignoring the thread topic, making no effort to engage with it, and just saying "Oh yeah well WHAT ABOUT ..." and going off on a tangent, is not really an acceptable part of debate.