> If you demand special protection rights for your opinions, are unwilling to rebut attacks with good arguments you disserve to be trolled else you could damage

> If you demand special protection rights for your opinions, are unwilling to rebut attacks with good arguments you disserve to be trolled else you could damage the public. How does that work with opinions that are demonstrably false though? How many times must we keep supplying creationists, flat-earthers or any other conspiracy theorists with rebuttals before it's enough? The problem here is that what constitutes a "good argument" is entirely subjective to your view of reality and these days you can find any number of websites that will support whatever opinion you wish to take.