> LLM spammers are not rationale, smart, nor do they deserve courtesy.

The comment that was written was assuming that someone reading it would be rational enough to engage. If you think that literally every person reading that comment will be a bad faith actor then I can see why you'd believe that the comment is unwarranted, but the comment was explicitly written on the assumption that that would not be universally the case, which feels reasonable.

> Debate is a fine thing with people close to your interests and mindset looking for shared consensus or some such. Not for enemies.

That feels pretty strange to me. Debate is exactly for people who you don't agree with. I've had great conversations with people on extremely divisive topics and found that we can share enough common ground to move the needle on opinions. If you only debate people who already agree with you, that seems sort of pointless.

> I mean think about what you're saying: This person that has wasted your time already should now be entitled to more of your time and to a debate?

I've never expressed entitlement. I've suggested that it's reasonable to have the goal of convincing others of your position and, if that is your goal, that it would be best served by engaging. I've never said that anyone is obligated to have that goal or to engage in any specific way.

> "never works"

I'm not convinced that it never works, that's counter to my experience.

> but more-so because it gives them attention and validation while ignoring them does not.

Again, I don't see why we're so focused on this idea of validation or legitimacy.

> I don't know what this question means

There's a repeated focus on how important it is to not "legitimize" or "validate" certain people. I don't know why this is of such importance that it keeps being placed above anything else.

> What is it about LLM spammers that you respect so much?

Nothing at all.

> I don't know about "scary" but they certainly do not deserve it. Do you disagree?

I don't understand the question, sorry.