I'm going to disagree here. Trolling requires a conscious and deliberate effort. If you look at the people Half-life admires/worships/emulates (Shapiro, Knowles, Crowder etc) that is how they argue. Deflect, then distort, then whatabouts then use hypothetical "Let's say"*. Claim to be about the facts then use the most emotionally charged arguments possible. Half-life "debates" like this because he is ignorant of any other technique. A 17 year old who buys a Fisher Price "My First Political Opinion" and then goes around on a mission to preach to the uncivilized isn't a troll. Annoying, yes. But not a troll. A 17 year old who spouts shit to garner a reaction is. Half-life is the former, not the latter. Characteristics of Troll, but minus the intent. For me at least, that's an important distinction.
Oh, I think the intent is entirely there, and here's why:
If we're being honest, this forum is not exactly a hotbed of internet discussion. It's a very small community, and I doubt that the Shapiro's of the world even know it exists. As such, it's a place where a young and inexperienced troll wannabe can test their efforts. Halfie would get eaten alive on a larger platform, so he comes here to hone his craft. Are the arguments he makes juvenile and elementary? Sure, but on this forum he doesn't risk being shot down by hundreds or thousands of people. This is - to use right wing terms - a "safe space."
Most of us are here to engage in serious discussion. Even those I strongly disagree with seem to grasp that. Not our intrepid interloper. He's here to throw stale arguments out and claim "I owned the libs/atheists," and to my recollection has not presented a serious argument. It's all designed to elicit a reaction, and by responding, we're feeding the kid.
