Debate is literally appealing to in-group/out-group bias. The purpose of debate is to try to influence that bias.
The weird thing about debate is that the most ridiculous claims have the most evidence against them, and are therefore the most work to refute with sources. Claiming that the earth is flat takes a lot more evidence to refute than claiming that the earth has slightly incorrect parameters of oblate spheroid-ness.
This is played upon by certain people. Trying to explain why a concept such as "anti-white hate-porn" is just not a thing is like trying to explain how we're pretty sure we actually landed on the moon.
This comes back to the fallacy of "equal time for both sides of the debate".
The weird thing about debate is that the most ridiculous claims have the most evidence against them, and are therefore the most work to refute with sources. Claiming that the earth is flat takes a lot more evidence to refute than claiming that the earth has slightly incorrect parameters of oblate spheroid-ness.
This is played upon by certain people. Trying to explain why a concept such as "anti-white hate-porn" is just not a thing is like trying to explain how we're pretty sure we actually landed on the moon.
This comes back to the fallacy of "equal time for both sides of the debate".