Of course. People need to spend more time shooting down stupid ideas on their own side of the political spectrum. Otherwise you just generate more low hanging f

Of course. People need to spend more time shooting down stupid ideas on their own side of the political spectrum. Otherwise you just generate more low hanging fruit for your opposition to pick, and allow them to ignore actual good arguments. That's how you end up with people like Trump in charge. Did Trump ever have to debate the effect of automation on the economy and how he was going to handle an economy with more supply of unskilled workers than demand? Hell no, it just turned into a pissing match over a misogynistic comment and no information of value was disseminated into the public sphere for three quarters of the election campaign. People are far more interested in lauding their moral superiority over people they (often wrongly) perceive to be less intelligent than themselves, than they are in learning new information. A well researched counter-argument to the latest scientific publication on climate change will get about 10 clicks and convince nobody, an article one step up from "durrrr this idiot politician thinks climate change causes every natural disaster" will get millions and sway an election. That's why it's the job of everyone in politics to provide the best, and only the best, possible argument for whatever position they take. You need to give your opponent only one thing to talk about if you expect a response to it.