Philosphy is an acedemic discipline, with rules and objectives.
Discourse is debate and adversarial in nature.
Rhetoric is the art of discourse wherein one side attempts to construct arguments in order to qualify a point of view.
In philosphic discourse their are opposing propositions, either an affirmation of a proposed proposition versus it's negation.
Or, arguing for one proposition against an opposing proposition.
1. The proposition is, "God Exists", one side makes arguments affirming the proposition, and the opposition makes arguments negating the proposition.
2. The propositions are, "theism is true" versus, "atheism is true".
In number one there is one proposition whereby the antagonists jobs are to make arguments for either the affirmation or negation of the proposition, respectively.
In number two the protagonist present arguments for one of two propositions.
I think it's imperative in philosophical discourse to know what logical fallacies are. The worse I see is the "fallacy of relevance". It's difficult to engage in discourse when someone injects a fallacy of relevance into their argument, especially when convinced it's relevant. Another pet peeve is when people use terms incorrectly, again convinced of its relevance. Words have meanings. It's nice when applied correctly.
I'd rather someone use every invective questioning my intelligence than have to deal with logical fallacies on a consistent basis. I grew up playing the dozens so name calling is just part of the game, rhetorical and sometimes fun if done smartly.
Often times articles are rejected even though well cited. Rejection of such citations is a genetic fallacy, attacking the source.
What I'm getting at is that political correctness in discourse should be dissuaded. This doesn't mean we should be disrespectful by attacking things like race, sex or economic status, no. But, just as much as we celebrate ability, we should also be able to address stupidity in the form of incoherent unintelligible comments and arguments.
Rhetorical argumentation(discourse) is strategic. Which sometimes means saying something to elicit a desired(anticipated) response in order to advance a point. While nuanced, I think there's a difference in this approach versus ad homonems many confuse.
This is an open forum. Granted, there are reasonable rules, but argumentation(discourse) is rhetorical, dynamic, passionate and adversarial. I'd hate to get, or give, the impression of engaging with robots.