@ProfDrHack You said: [[[(not to mention that "either" is the actual default)."]]]
Congratulations, ProfDrHack. This might be the first actual attempt at a counter-argument in this entire post.
That's the thing about echo-chambers; the substance can be as erroneous as it is vacuous, whilst the "text wall" resembles a 'sky-scraper'.
I don't digress my point because it is set on 'click-drag' as a default as was stated, but finally someone actually tried to argue a logical fact.
The argument was that clicking and dragging is default on every other site; therefore, if someone coming from somewhere else were to experience a 2-click setting here, even with an option to change it, it would be considered an annoyance and leave a bad first impression. Given the amount of people playing fast-clock time controls, this is amplified all the more.
The point that was being made, was that it's nonsense to promote a setup as being logical and legitimate, when that same setup is one that people don't only "not like", but one that people literally wouldn't tolerate for more than a minute.
So same questions for you ProfDrHack:
1. How many games would you have to win in a row, due to your opponent having accidental glitches/slips, before you would want someone to program a 'takeback' rule so that you could finally enjoy a good game of chess again?
2. Why isn't accidentally knocking the king over considered a loss?
3. Why is it that if someone accidentally knocks over their king, they do not have to move it and are exonerated from the touchmove rule?
1-8 in post #7 deal with these three questions in a logical and legitimate way.
But trying to argue that it's in any way "legitimate chess" is illogical and illegitimate.
You said: [[[("Arguments don't get better if you surround them with walls of text")]]]
It's not lost on the judges that when the opposition leads with ad hominem, that logical fallacy is the best that they could produce. If they had better, they would have produced better.
When people are arguing someone who states that "2+2=5", they don't focus any attention on the words used to make that assertion, they simply ask change for 2 twenty dollar bills.
'Asking change for 2 twenty dollar bills', is what I've been routinely doing since people butted in to protect their weak ego with fallacious, illogical, and illegitimate arguments in response to post #7, which perfectly explained the 2 different schools of thought that OP was asking about.
When faced with those 3 questions, all of a sudden everyone has wanted to change the subject extra-fast, except for the one yokel that guffawed some lie about how 'he'd enjoy winning every game on a glitch/slip'.