the decision will be made through rational argument. if you are not willing to debate or argue then your position is forfeit (I.E. you are the one with the intolerant philosophy).
I get frustrated at this line of reasoning; how long do you have to debate it? If the person you are debating keeps bringing up illogical arguments, or says non-sequiturs, or keeps making the same arguments over and over, do you have to keep arguing or 'your position is forfeit'?
Do you have to debate EVERYONE who disagrees with you? Do you have to have the exact same argument with different people, because the second person didn't hear your argument with the first?
I have a friend who trolls me by taking advantage of my need to be rational. He will argue with me, but continue to make more and more non-sensical arguments as we go along. By the end, he will say something like "hah! So you admit hamsters are nocturnal, therefore the sun can't rise in the east!"
At that point I realize he has just been trying to get me angry with irrational argument, so I know I just have to stop arguing.
Just because I refuse to debate him doesn't mean I give up my ability to have a position.
then the axioms themselves can be argued until a conclusion is reached, otherwise debate can be suspended. the underlying axiom here is that debate can be had, and that people can be convinced through reason.
> the underlying axiom here is that debate can be had, and that people can be convinced through reason
I take it you haven't seen Twitter (or Facebook, or Reddit, or even SE lately)? Or perhaps you're referring only to in person interactions here, but I've still never witnessed this outside of a STEM setting (and even then, not always).
A platform that deliberately limits the length of what can be posted to only the most trivial thoughts turns out to be a poor place for debate? Shocking, that.
Do you have to debate EVERYONE who disagrees with you? Do you have to have the exact same argument with different people, because the second person didn't hear your argument with the first?
I have a friend who trolls me by taking advantage of my need to be rational. He will argue with me, but continue to make more and more non-sensical arguments as we go along. By the end, he will say something like "hah! So you admit hamsters are nocturnal, therefore the sun can't rise in the east!"
At that point I realize he has just been trying to get me angry with irrational argument, so I know I just have to stop arguing.
Just because I refuse to debate him doesn't mean I give up my ability to have a position.