Xelor X.

Introduction:
I joined DebatePolitics.com (DP) about a year ago. My user ID there was Xelor, and I welcome you to review threads I created (https://www.debatepolitics.com/search.php?searchid=*******) and posts I made so you can get a sense of the types of content and arguments I presented. Here are a few of the ~10K posts I made on the site:
-- Post 82 in "Today... These are the kind of fake news headlines the public is subject to reading..." (https://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-in-the-media/*******-today-these-kind-fake-news-headlines-public-subject-reading-post*******358.html#post*******358)
-- Post 10 in "I trusted you!' Trump voters seethe after realizing they're getting screwed by the GOP's tax plan" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-non-msm/*******-trusted-you-trump-voters-seethe-after-realizing-they-re-getting-screwed-gop-s-tax-plan-post*******197.html#post*******197)
-- Posts 56 & 57 in "Richard Dawkins' Compound Ignorant Mistakes" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/academia/*******-richard-dawkins-compound-ignorant-mistakes-post*******534.html#post*******534)
-- Post 1 in ""FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/*******-w-171-fbi-chief-wray-refutes-barr-says-no-spying-trump-campaign.html)
-- Posts 394,395 & 396 in "FBI chief Wray refutes Barr, says no 'spying' on Trump campaign" (Post 394: https://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/*******-w-171-fbi-chief-wray-refutes-barr-says-no-spying-trump-campaign-40.html#post*******879)
-- Post 1 of "Reconcile this..." (https://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/*******-reconcile.html#post*******120)
-- Post 1 of "Social Welfare" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/*******-social-welfare.html)
-- Post 1 of "Should public schools teach Father Georges Lemaitre's creation theory in science classes?" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/education/*******-should-schools-teach-father-georges-lemaitres-creation-theory-part-their-science-curriculum.html)
-- Post 1 of "An examination of the NRA's argument against registering guns" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/*******-examination-nras-argument-against-registering-guns.html)
-- Post 1 of "A legislation proposal on accountability" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/*******-legislation-proposal-accountability.html)
-- Post 1 of "Is it logical to believe in God solely on the basis of the major arguments for His existence?" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/*******-logical-believe-god-solely-basis-major-arguments-his-existence.html)
-- Post 1 of "An age of character draws depressingly yet conspicuously closer to a close" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/off-topic-discussion/*******-age-character-draws-depressingly-yet-conspicuously-closer-close.html)
-- Post 1 of "Regulation of Software Platform Firms" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/*******-regulation-software-platform-firms.html)
-- "Do you think people should be held accountable for their blacked out behavior? (see the rubric)" (https://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/*******-do-you-think-people-should-held-accountable-their-blacked-out-behavior-see-rubric.html)

Jejune Discourse:
The vast majority of opening posts (OPs) on DP consist of a member excerpting a passage or two from a news article whereof the opening poster (OP-er) writes a banal sentence or two about it. Basically OP-ers' OPs do little more than inform readers that "so and so" wrote an story about "such and such." Once in a blue moon, an OP-er cites a news or other essay as the inspiration for an editorial/argumentative essay OP-er presents.

Don't mistake me, however. I started threads of that sort (https://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/*******-we-find-no-convincing-evidence.html). The disappointment derives not from the mere existence of such threads. Rather it's a function of threads commenced with a member's own editorial essay wherein s/he takes a clear and unequivocal stance being too rare.

Like most OPs on the site, most subsequent responses in the thread are little purport to discuss among the most complex issues of our time with only a sentence or two more prose than a tweet allows.

So, if you're looking for a place wherein people present strong, complete and coherent arguments for/against a given policy or "whatever," I suggest you look elsewhere. You can certainly present your own "proper" argument (note there's a 5000 character limit to each post, so you'll to break such commentary into multiple posts -- see posts 6-9 in "Is Quality of Life Actually Increasing?": https://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/*******-quality-life-actually-increasing-post*******698.html#post*******698); however, if you do, expect to receive either no response or a barrage of trivial ones or one after another response that fails to consider material parts or all of the themes, factors and the relationships among them that you addressed.

The posting style of liberal and conservative members is fairly similar; however, conservatives are more likely to post remarks that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual thread topic. Conservative members tend, slightly more than liberals, also to make inferences that aren't supported by the content to which their inference pertains.

Lastly, notwithstanding member's political lean, there're a lot of posts made by folks who really aren't well versed on the subject being discussed, yet they express strong opinions about it. For example, see the above referenced thread: "Should public schools teach Father Georges Lemaitre's creation theory in science classes?", the poll responses, a number of the posts in it and my own post 27 in it. Indeed, post 62 in that thread reflects a profound lack of understanding about the scientific method and the Theory of Evolution.

A lot of the exchanges on DP consists of members taking cheap pot shots at the political party, ideology and/or politicians they oppose or dislike. For instance, conservatives are quick to defend gun rights and assail gun control advocates, but they are completely quiescent when bid to proffer ways to attenuate the incidence of involuntary gun-related deaths and injuries. Liberals are quick to decry income inequality, but their doing so is ideologically driven rather than founded on any particular economic theory.

And, yes, there are certain members who seem to lurk in wait for threads they can derail, generally any thread that presents a strong argument against the lurker's stance or political or medial "darling," there are certain members (liberals and conservatives) who routinely post insightful and on-topic comments. The latter genre of member's are the bright lights on DP, but they comprise a very small minority of the regularly participating membership.

Capricious Moderators:
I was given an infraction for the content I posted in the above referenced post 396 (https://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/*******-w-171-fbi-chief-wray-refutes-barr-says-no-spying-trump-campaign-40.html#post*******061), A moderator declared defamatory my response to the other member. I attempted to dispute the infraction, but on the same day I was told my dispute argument -- my refutation of the infraction was based on the fact that the truth is not defamatory -- was being considered, I was banned.

So that's another problem: if you are well versed on a given topic -- natural sciences, jurisprudence, social science, business management, etc. -- you'll need a lot of patience if you're of a mind to defend your own remarks. (It's just as well that I got banned, for my patience had run out and I'd about a month ago satisfied the social-media research goals that moved me to join it in the first place.)

On the same day I received the aforementioned notification, I also created a thread a moderator summarily deleted. That thread asked the DP moderators about the copyright message, "Debate Politics.com Copyright ©2004-2019," that appears in the footer of every DP page. I asked who, per public records, is the copyright claimant and for what exactly was copyright claimed. I asked because after using the Library of Congress' copyright search tool, I could find no copyright that had ever been registered in association with Debate Politics.com (or anything resembling it).

I initially posted the above question in the "Feedback/Suggestions" subforum, and that is wherefrom it was summarily removed from view (presumably deleted).

DP has a section called the "Basement." (Non-members cannot access that part of the forum.) Among the subforums in the Basement is one called "Where's My Binky?" The "Binky" part of the Basement is where members may air criticisms and complaints about various actions the moderators take... Or, in DP's own words in the DP rules, the Binky section is "made specifically for members wishing to rant about Moderator action."

On the same date that I was told my dispute was being considered, I created a "Binky" thread to complain about my the moderators' having deleted my copyright question thread. In my Binky post, I noted exactly what I'd asked about, and then I complained about the deletion.

About an hour or two after I created my Binky "rant," I was banned for "harassment." Whom I harassed I don't know.

In addition to the specific example of moderator caprice described above, moderators do not appear to exercise any measure of consistency in terms of who or what comments for which they assign infractions. Indeed, they exercise little-to-no discursive oversight; consequently, it's rare that a thread actually stays on-topic. The moderation team's insouciance in that regard is evident by how infrequently one sees in-thread moderator instructions/warnings to stay on-topic as compared with how many posts in any given thread are off-topic.

Other thoughts:
The non-political sections of DP are pleasant enough, but it can be like pulling teeth to get people to share things. For instance, the Food section is fairly lively, yet on the several occasions I bid folks to share recipes, very few folks did.

A fair number of DP's members will readily attest to "this or that" personal experience -- sometimes related to careers, sometimes merely anecdotal -- in support of a political or policy stance they're advancing, don't expect much in the way of reflective exposition that connects those experiences with something going on in the world today.

Conclusion:
On what basis, if any, would I recommend DP?

Well, the ratio of conservatives to liberals is relatively even, though it seemed to me there were slightly more conservatives among the regular posters.

If you're seeking a web forum that encourages, welcomes and is structured to support rigorously coherent (sound/cogent) debate on public policies, look elsewhere.

If you're seeking trivial jabs based on whataboutism, tu quoque, guilt by association, well poisoning, and whatever other rational failing there is, DP may be a good fit for you.