You're outnumbered on HN.
Would we still upvote those who deny climate change for discussion's sake, for example?
Why would you do that? There are plenty of opinions that are primarily "discussed" in bad faith, and that's one of the more significant ones.
If an ideal society wishes to eliminate climate change denial, for example, it won't be through silencing and stigmatizing their beliefs; it'll be through respectfully listening and debating.
As an example, I was rather unaware of the debate against climate change until reading a discussion on HN from people who were oft characterized as 'deniers.' One, for example, believed there were more immediate problems to be solved, and the other wasn't convinced by the science. It was a productive discussion, and I feel that everyone is better off having it, yet I fear that it wouldn't be condoned today without a mass of downvotes.
I agree that there is no point in downvoting this sort of thing, but it is unfortunate if it gets upvoted by people who are not in a position to judge its validity. Scoring arguments on style is not the way to go (even if that is how the SAT essay is scored.)
All sites are agenda driven. But somehow sites with agendas that I disagree with are more guilty of bias. Funny how that works. Fake news, on the other hand, is claiming global warming is hoax invented by the Chinese. I would say only 10% of my facebook friends are conservative and I've only seen them post blatant lies like photoshops of black NFL players cheering the burning of a US flag. The liberals, at worst, get a little too excited about the Russian investigation. Though that has as much merit as Hilary's emails.
I was surprised by the downvotes to a fairly argued comment, and then I read this hours ago and it seemed valid. The most upvoted comment in response now, however, calls him 'idiotic' several times throughout.