> If it's so obviously wrong, then nobody will believe it anyway.
That's not objectively true. You have extremely obvious historical examples at your disposal that completely negate what you just said, assuming you've been exposed to some equivalency of U.S. middle school level world history. To provide some more immediate examples relevant to the rhetoric on /pol/, we face issues with people not vaccinating, believing in deep state conspiracy theories, etc. Don't even bother with that talking point because you're either just ignorant about what's being discussed or being disingenuous.
>These reactionary calls to ban speech you don't like just makes your own position seem weak.
No, it makes my position look sane and practical. That's kind of a dishonest statement to make. It's not because I don't like it, again, it's because the typoe of rhetortic on /pol/ (that is supported quantifiably by thread bumping and the frequency with which those talking points come up) is insane and antithetical to a decent, functioning society.
>Nothing is above debate.
Plenty of things are below the debate threshold. Everything I just listed being some examples of those.
>those people are the absolute minority
No they're not. Shit was so prevalent it caused some nutcase to storm a pizza place and threaten innocent pizza loving patrons.
In short, spare me the fuzzy peaches ("free speech") parade you're trying to put on. Because you know it's not an honest talking point and it certainly isn't a principle that leads to some higher plane of intellectual debate. It does quite the opposite.