I get the feeling that Clark is planning to logically prove that the block bot is bad for debating. Which while true, is irrelevant to the purpose of the block bot.

The block bot exists because sealions are dog piling people on Twitter for sharing an opinion they don't like. Twitter is not the place to debate anything (anyone with half a lick of sense knows that 140 characters doesn't work for any meaningful conversation) and getting dog piled is such a terrible experience that it ruins twitter for people who just wanna use it like a normal person.

So, my advise to freebsdgirl is this: agree with him. If he tries to work the block bot into it:
1) Due to the character limit and lack of personal connection, twitter isn't an ideal platform for debating with strangers
2) People do dogpile strangers on twitter for having a different opinion, which creates an obstacle for their targets to use twitter normally
3) As twitter is a suboptimal platform for debate, it is very difficult to respond to those dogpiling in a meaningful way, let alone in a way that enables the opponent's change of mind. This makes a user feel powerless to defend against the dogpile
4) The purpose of the blockbot is for people who don't want to feel pressured to debate on such a limited platform have an option to be protected from dogpiling.

The biggest problem with public debate right now is Twitter. Its design kills real conversation and reduces people to short, buzzphrases on a screen. The behaviour of dogpilers and the inability for alternative views to gain traction there contribute more to echo chambers as it's showing you the alternate position in a negative light, poisoning it from the get go. Before we can take the blockbot away we need to ensure that the endemic problems with debate on Twitter are fixed. If they can't be, then we as a society badly need to find a better way to mix debate and social media.