> Neither side on an internet debates actually owes you anything.
I disagree, the person trying to convince you of something always owes you an explanation.
Actual reading on something, while a good thing, never resolves an argument because you can't replace the person you are arguing with's premises with a generic premise from somewhere else and come to a reasonable conclusion.
I mean, i think we agree here. One post explaining your position is what i think is owed - if you gave zero explanation but still expected people to believe you (e.g. just yelled "bullshit" and walked away), i think that would be an unreasonable position.
I disagree, the person trying to convince you of something always owes you an explanation.
Actual reading on something, while a good thing, never resolves an argument because you can't replace the person you are arguing with's premises with a generic premise from somewhere else and come to a reasonable conclusion.