Every discord begins in the person himself. If you are not able to resolve this inside yourself, you will always look out there for "sides" and declare someone an enemy. Also the Nazis had problems to concretize their enemy, they had to build a mental construction to finally find guilty people to whom they could blame their misery. Ask yourself why you need sides...? If you open a trench between "them" and "you," you have no choice, do you not? What you say doesn't differ much from what is widespread: accusing a big stupid gray mass of ignorance and identifying masterminds who manipulate that mass. Then you position yourself as a sign reader and say: Resist the beginnings. You start to define the space in which you move and you need enemy objects that you can place on the playing field to attach an attitude to them that you can oppose.

Insofar as you do not need to subordinate intelligence to the masses, your belief in power and manipulation reveals itself. You may say that you have seen through the rulers, but I rather see a fascination with the subject. For the "side game" you need an in and an out group. After that it is easy to say: All those who have no idea of the processes are against peace and they are guilty of non-action, yes, even of not thinking.

I see an attempt to put aversion to some (the stupid nonthinkers) and others (the evil wire-pullers).

You seem to believe that if you position yourself as seeing through and renounce any authority, you are withdrawing power from those you are against (whoever that may be). However, the way I look at it, you add oil to the fire in this eternal struggle, where good and evil must be clearly distinguished to justify the conflict.

Why debate when you want to agree anyway? Yes, indeed. That is what debates are for. Why else should we have a dialogue, if not with the aim of reaching agreement? The principle is that people feel extremely uncomfortable if they fail to reach consensus. Nobody likes to leave an argument with the impression of having achieved little or nothing between people. Having a debate is a respectful means that follows certain rules and in which the debaters can subordinate themselves to these rules in order to orient themselves.

If you are looking for a debate simply to distract yourself from boredom, how much should your counterpart assess or address you?

If you have contempt or prejudice against a debater in the first place, every word on the subject is wasted. It is like a scientific experiment that pretends to operate with an open question/thesis, but in reality wants to determine the result unambiguously.

Each one of us - you, me and all the others - can become a troll and each one has parts in himself that favour or complicate this. Apparently you have examined yourself for troll qualities and have positioned yourself as prosecutor, defender and judge and finally spoken yourself free.

From my point of view, acquittal is a delicate matter. Nothing is fixed. Again and again you can reveal troll qualities you're not aware of and it's wise to check every encounter with people to see if you're really in a living contact with someone.

How much are you interested in consensus and a good debate before you shrug your shoulders or say "WTF"? How often do you leave a comment section in coherence?

I interpret it as a sign of intelligence when people leave the platform in droves, but of course everything can be interpreted exactly the way you want it to be.

When Beauty dines with the Beast and overcomes all the disgust and nefariousness attached to the Beast, the story tells something of value: Everyone is a Beast and everyone is beautiful. It's always the moment that decides.