Most people agree that there are limits to a debate. I think there are essentially two camps: The intellectual/traditional camp wants to consider ideas indepen

Most people agree that there are limits to a debate. I think there are essentially two camps: The intellectual/traditional camp wants to consider ideas independently from social context, so things like doxxing or guilt-by-association are way off-limits. But something that potentially reinforces "bad" behavior is within bounds as long as it's true, relevant, and leads into a worthwhile discussion. The socially-aware camp is almost the opposite. Facts should be vetted based on whether they fit a story that promotes and reinforces "good" behavior. Off-limits are anything that challenges or complicates the story. But twisting or cherry-picking facts, or personally pressuring those involved in the debate, are in bounds. I feel the second camp is self-defeating. It's essentially that the ends (e.g. getting Trump out of office) justify the means (nearly anything). The tactics used undermine trust as well as undercutting the values themselves. And the definition of "good" behavior is rapidly shifting away from basic morality (treating all people with respect and fairness) into political convenience (pandering to minority groups without actually helping) and then further into plain power grabs (punishing political opponents). Bad means don't create good ends.