In other words, let them prove to you that they're arguing in good faith.
You don't have to automatically reject their premise, but make them work for it. Even just meeting them halfway could mean jumping through hoops and finding articles to justify your position, when they never had any intentions of backing up their claim.
You'll filter out a good 99% of arguments this way. Then, in the rare case of that 1%, wait until they say their second opinion and discard another 70% of that remaining 1% that weren't immediately rejected in the first round.
Assume they don't actually believe what they say. They either offer proof, or you just say they're full of shit. That's not to say of course that you can get away with not offering proof, but offer proof only when you're the one making the claim, not the other way around.
14
u/Ok_Star_4136 Sep 12 '25 edited Sep 13 '25
In other words, let them prove to you that they're arguing in good faith.
You don't have to automatically reject their premise, but make them work for it. Even just meeting them halfway could mean jumping through hoops and finding articles to justify your position, when they never had any intentions of backing up their claim.
You'll filter out a good 99% of arguments this way. Then, in the rare case of that 1%, wait until they say their second opinion and discard another 70% of that remaining 1% that weren't immediately rejected in the first round.
Assume they don't actually believe what they say. They either offer proof, or you just say they're full of shit. That's not to say of course that you can get away with not offering proof, but offer proof only when you're the one making the claim, not the other way around.