I don't disagree with you as far as the effectiveness of polemic; more the ethics of it. Built on a rational/empirical foundation, a good polemic can engage hit

I don't disagree with you as far as the effectiveness of polemic; more the ethics of it. Built on a rational/empirical foundation, a good polemic can engage hit people in both the guts and the brain. That's fine. But absent such a foundation, a polemic is just empty posturing. It might win, but to what end? And if we accept this as a legitimate way of arguing policy, then how what right to we have to object when others use the same tactic against us? I recognise that all over the world -- and especially in America -- the political sphere is increasingly dominated by people engaging in polemical arguments that consider facts to be essentially irrelevant. And yes, this is working for them. But if we stoop to that level, the contagion only spreads, and politics devolves into nothing more than tribal hooting at one another. Which is usually the last step before civil war. So we need to be better than that.