Why I don't debate ancaps

So, I had an ancap try to debate me last night, and I tried to make it clear that I didn't want to, but they kept pushing their views anyway. It's actually kind of obnoxious and he really reminded me why I don't debate ancaps to begin with.

Long story short, most ancaps I've dealt with are EXTREMELY pushy, and come off as extremely brainwashed. I do want to point out this may not be all of them, but I've had enough encounters with them to have seen a pattern develop. Ancaps are so over their head in ideology that they literally cannot understand that not everyone thinks like them. To them, their worldview is so self evident, it's like water to a fish. They live in it, and are totally unaware that it really is a social construct. Even worse, trying to explain it to them will just lead to a long drawn out attempt by them to win me over with their logic. They start out with these supposed "self evident" axioms and just impose them on a debate whether we like them or not.

The problem is, their views are nowhere near as objective as they think they are. For example, one tried to argue that I accept the concept of self ownership as they define it just in debating with them, because by arguing with them I'm respecting their bodily autonomy or something? Um....no? I actually think the world is quite a darwinian hellhole in its natural state and that all morality is subjective. Moreover, I believe there are many different approaches to morality and that philosophy generally produces models. Just because I don't attack people at first sight doesn't mean I accept their moral axiom. I could be a Kantian practicing the categorical imperative. I could be a Christian loving my neighbor. I could be a social contractarian who believes by joining society that unsanctioned aggression is wrong. I could be a utilitarian who believes in the greatest good for the greatest number and thinks that aggression is not the way to get there. And quite frankly, while I lean utilitarian, I tend to respect some aspects of many models as valid and useful lenses to see the world. Ironically, even some aspects of anarcho capitalism, which I see as a form of extreme ethical egoism. I mean.....GAH! I really have trouble believing people are really this brainwashed to believe they have the ONE RIGHT moral philosophy and that everyone else is wrong, but they unfortunately are.

Debating these guys is almost like trying to debate a presuppositionalist like Sye Ten Bruggencate. They have their axioms and presuppositions, they're convinced they're right, they're convinced everyone who thinks differently is wrong, and they're aggressive in debating and spreading their ideas, even when informed that they are not welcome. And based on these axioms (some of which I discussed in a post a while back talking about their crazy beliefs), they have this well thought out, but ultimately horrifying system of right and wrong based on the logical conclusions of their beliefs.

I don't deny that they have A potentially valid model for society (or lack thereof) to be predicated on, but that's just it, it's A model. It's not THE model. They don't have a monopoly on truth. They think they do and they go into debates throwing out their system as self evident fact and insist you debate your own worldview on their terms, but they don't.

And that's why it's not worth debating them. They go into the argument assuming they're right, throwing out all of these claims, putting people who dare think differently on the defensive, insist they debate on their terms, and they will never ever stop. It's like an alligator that sinks its teeth into your leg and won't let go no matter how hard you struggle. And ultimately, where does the debate lead? You spend hours going back and forth with the guy, he thinks you're a monster because you don't believe in the nonaggression principle and believe in "forcing" him to do certain things as a member of society like pay taxes, and you think he's a monster because he believes child labor and wage slavery in general is a good thing as long as its voluntary. Heck, and I've mentioned this in my other post, but there are ancaps who believe freaking pedophilia is okay as long as the child "consents". These guys also don't recognize things like duress, manipulation, lack of other options, etc. They don't recognize that many relationships only appear voluntary on the surface but are actually quite coercive, and if you try to point it out to them they start railing about the government.

I mean, it's a total crap show. Take my advice, don't bother debating ancaps. It's a very long, frustrating experience that basically comes down an ideological fanatic trying to evangelize and impose their worldview on you. Nothing you will say to them will convince them, and nothing they say to you will convince you if you see the world different and don't buy into their BS. You'll just end him resenting them and them you hours later when you're done.