Perhaps there are people who want to voice unpopular opinions anonymously in order to avoid social backlashes? We at HN frequently celebrate anonymity as a means of free speech.

And the account is named hktruth, how is that supposed to be taken as impartial? Sounds like a duck as well.

Frequently, people have political opinions that are incredibly nationalistic, to the point of sounding like complete gibberish to anyone outside their bubble.

I generally don't assume that they are bots, shills, or trolls, even if they sound like them. I need only look at the outcome of elections to know that those positions have incredibly broad grassroots support.

True, but consider that they're equally productive for any discourse, that is to say a net negative. Therefore it would be pertinent to treat them similarly.

what kind of "discourse" are you aiming for after you've labeled and dismissed everyone with a pro-China sentiment? a debate where the only participants have the same opinions seems like the least productive possible form of discussion.

"everyone with a pro-China sentiment" != one sock puppet account with zero history aside from spouting rhetoric on one position.

What makes you think it's a sock puppet, and not someone who wants to express a political opinion, without having it tied back to their main account?

It would be a sock puppet if one person had multiple accounts for this purpose.

Would you debate a Scientologist on the merits of Scientology?

...of course? Who else would you even be debating with? What is there to discuss between two people who hate scientology? Isn't the point of debate to entertain different views and/or to persuade others?