Don't listen to them. What you are doing is very anti-polarisation. In a polarised society, you will have a lot of disbelievers in you. Don't listen to them. To make any convincing argument, you have to put it through the scrutiny of multiple arguments in all sides. Climate deniers are not climate deniers because they run away from truth, they are because they think they found THE truth. If their arguments can be... Source: over 1 year ago

Kialo.com is better for real debate. There you could cite your study, and people could discuss why it does-or-doesn't apply to this-or-that population, and any name-calling, or maligning someone's attitude, would be deleted with explanation and invitation to rephrase. Source: almost 2 years ago

Should check out https://kialo.com . Best site for forming a healthy debate. Source: almost 2 years ago

I read it and it looks like they studied r/TheRedPill, r/DatingAdvice, r/Atheism, and r/TheDonald, but I don't see where it suggests the results might apply to subreddits such as r/religion or other discussion platforms such as kialo.com. Also, they only seem to have found a small bias in the more neutral subreddit r/DatingAdvice. Source: almost 3 years ago

And about your second suggesting: Yes, I also had something like in mind – and in fact, there is kialo.com already doing it! Source: about 3 years ago

It's worth mentioning that there is a Hashnode mobile app - which makes a big difference to authoring articles on the fly. It's not like writing Markdown, committing it to a repo and kickstarting a deployment pipeline were easy from a phone, so this is a game changer. - Source: dev.to / over 1 year ago