I often use this as an approach to debating. Example; Can we both agree that you should be able to purchase a kitchen knife without a special license? (in part

I often use this as an approach to debating. Example; Can we both agree that you should be able to purchase a kitchen knife without a special license? (in parts of China, you can't). Do we both agree that allowing people to have personal nuclear weapons is probably a bad idea and shouldn't be legal? If we can agree on those two things, we're actually on the same side of the argument. The only difference is where we draw the line. I might draw it at "you can buy a sword but not a gun" - you might draw it at "you can buy a gun but not a bazooka". But we both realise that some things can be given to people and handled responsibly (like a simple knife) but other things can't (like large amounts of explosives) Occasionally you'll meet a person that says "no I think people should be allowed to have nukes" or "no, we should ban all sharp objects" in which case you can dismiss a whole like of reasoning, i.e. arguing where to draw the line, because the person's made it clear there is no bounded limit, and they are not open to debating that. Other examples of scales where, if you can't establish boundaries, there is no point debating that person; - can we forgive a child for accidentally killing a small animal? If so, can we forgive Hitler for genocide? - can I draw a caricature of a famous person? If so, can I make deepfake porn featuring my neighbour? - can I push a burglar out of my house when he breaks in? If so, can I execute anyone who enters my property?