It is not fundamentally bad-faith when he presents the argument honestly. He makes no sign that he isn't willing to discuss the argument purely on its merits. H

It is not fundamentally bad-faith when he presents the argument honestly. He makes no sign that he isn't willing to discuss the argument purely on its merits. His comment could set us up for a healthy discussion on why one should (not) hold that specific opinion. If one does not already know of any bullet proof counter argument, then presenting a "hypothetical" (devil's advocate) argument is extremely helpful to investigate why that argument is in fact wrong (or the "hypothetical" might even be correct. How can you know if you don't investigate the counter arguments?) Refusing to engage with an argument because it is "dangerous" leads to no deeper understanding whatsoever.