I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree that both "sides" are susceptible to group think and a mob mentality. I consider myself fairly moderate which is

I hear what you're saying and I don't disagree that both "sides" are susceptible to group think and a mob mentality. I consider myself fairly moderate which is why I include examples of extreme views from the left (anti-vaccination theories, GMO conspiracies, 9/11 “truthers”) in my analysis, as well. I’m not a fan of misinformation no matter what the source is and do my best to try to “lead” people away from it. That being said, what do we do in this situation (which is a common one I see in these kinds of debates)?: - Group A claims X. - Person N asks Group A to provide evidence for their claim X. - Group A cannot provide said evidence, or the evidence provided is unreliable/cannot be validated. - Person N asks for additional evidence that the claim X made by Group A is true. - Group A insists they are right and refuses to provide any additional evidence for claim X. - Person N chooses to not believe Group A’s claim X due to a lack of evidence. What’s the next step? Assuming good faith on the sides of both parties, how do you reach some sort of agreement or conclusion? And what do we do when claim X made by Group A is one that leads to violence or other societal harms (such as an increase in death and suffering due to the spread of disease in the case of anti-vaccination theories)? I don’t have a good answer, here. I desperately want to have rational and productive conversations with people with whom I disagree. But how do you avoid a deadlock situation like the above?