There are people who understand this, and there are people who think you can just debate everything forever, and that the one with the most supporting points and references to Latin names of argumentative fallacies wins.
If you're trying to win over rational people, and refutations are out there to be had, they need to be included. Anyone who thinks "everyone says this argument has the same glaring flaws, and that illustrates how awesome the argument is!" is at risk of reaching conspiracy-theory levels of crazy.
That's an excellent argument. Using it you can win any discussion and prove anybody wrong, whatever is the issue - just declare anything rational the opponent says from this point on is said because he knows he's wrong and tries to rationalize it - and kaboom! you win. Nicely done.
That's assuming that people are arguing in good faith though. When 100 other people have rationally debunked them already and they still say the same series of falsehoods and gish gallop onto the next one when you point out its incorrect in the same way those other 100 people already have I don't see what benefit there is in engaging with them.
Some people argue about things to win an argument, not uncover the truth, engaging with them as if they are doing the former when they're really doing the latter will get nowhere.
You could make an actual argument with real points that people could consider and evaluate rather than pretending like everyone else is an idiot and you have some grand truth that is simultaneously so obvious that you don’t need to state it and is somehow something that nobody else has a clue what you’re talking about.
The line of argument you’re objecting to comes up every time because it continues to be correct every time. Instead of saying you’re tired of it, it might be more productive to admit that you’re wrong.
It's not like you're the first person to try and dissolve a long standing philosophical debate before. It just becomes part of the ongoing debate, because low and behold, not everyone is going to magically agree that you've dissolved the debate.
It's like you're arguing with somebody different from me, who said something entirely different from what I said, while also agreeing with my unstated premise, and conditional language.
reply