What if I think my decision is pointless and I would rather say what I think the truth is, despite not being convinced of it? Should I just pretend I'm convinced? Or should I just stay quiet?

Just being technical, since I don't think it's okay, answering yes would be incorrect, that is my reasoning anyway. I know it might look like I'm in favor, but that's just because my debating spirit is very poor in some cases, this one included, hope that answers your question.

Sometimes, animal testing is a necessary evil, many advances in medicine, for example, are made with the help of this kind of test, and lives are saved as result. So while I wouldn't say that they are "okay", they are justified.

My mistake is noted, but doesn't justifies your own, neither makes it right. In the defense of my first comment, the only way to add anything at all is by endorsing one of the presented alternatives, not my favorite feature in the plataform, certainly. As to the reason why it is highlighted, I'm inclined to think that it is listed because it is one of the skills (or set of them) that are inevitably developed through the practice of debate, and by extention, the use of the site.

You argue that because it is listed with the same priority as critical thinking then it must refer to a dishonest form of persuasive writing? Because if you are, then according to that same line of logic, it would be reasonable to asume that "constructive reasoning" should mean something of dubious morality like "planification of criminal activities" simply because it technically fits the description of constructive reasoning.

The dichotomy you present is flawed, persuasiveness is a quality implicit in human languages rather than some maneuver you explicitly use in diametrical opposition to rational thinking. If an speech fails to convince the ethical, emotional or logical sensibilities of the audience then it is deemed as not persuasive enough.

What is more, “persuasive writing” is in many cases the result of incorporating both, linguistic skills and good reasoning into an argument.

If the issue is about the succes rate or the abundance of arguments that appeal exclusively to ethics and emotions while neglecting rationality, then the question might be less about persuasion and debating tactics and more about anti-intellectualism, a different animal.

I’m certain that I exist, not because I think, but because I identify the subject of my thought inside the only environment I qualify as existing. Thus my existence is not intrinsically defined as an axiom of my unique, isolated perception, but as a part of something else, that also exists. I exist because something else exists as well. Without something else, there wouldn’t be any manner/reason to corroborate or deny any existence, so I certainly must exist.

Political movements are nothing like colors, we can all agree on +/-99% of the cases what blue looks like. But you can't give me such an accurate representation of feminism, because everyone has their own ideas as for what feminism does or doesn't represents and while some of these ideas might be reasonable enough, many others are downright demented, that is something that causes feminism to be also a very polarizing concept. So, you can either accept that both the ideology and the political movement are far from flawless and that there are some people who don't want to be a part of it because of these flaws, or you can pretend that anyone who is unable to "accept feminism in their lives" is simply wrong.

Also, "masculinism" is nothing but a grain of dust in the collective consciousness when compared to feminism. Here, for some perspective on the matter:

https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q;=masculinism,feminism,egalitarism

Unless you are paying to see a bunch of cows doing tricks for your own amusement, I don’t see the problem here. Also, there’s barely any options as to what we eat, while entertainment is far more diverse and potentially cheaper than breeding animals merely for this purpose. What I’m arguing here is that while animal shows are far from necessary, eating meat is much more ingrained in our lifestyle, so they are not equivalent situations.

The obvious solution to the dilemma is having slug races as entertainment and insect farms as a source of nourishment, of course.

So, it is an ad hominem about the opposite incurring in ad hominem, nice one! My political position feel more validated now, being represented by this women with such a strange expression in such a masterfully executed demotivational poster meme sure is great. Are you sure Bush doesn't have a hand in this?

Also, you are all racists! Bye.

The problem is people use the word for everything, you are doing it now, saying that all humanist are by definition feminists, overusing a word for the sake of the word rather than giving the right message only causes the word in question to deteriorate any substance or meaning it ever held. Also, the word "feminism" doesn't holds any intelectual right of exclusivity over the concept of equality among the genders, there's another word which is egalitarism, although many prefer the social prestige that comes with the feminist(tm) label, or at least that was before the term was bloated with all kind of nonsense.