This is because we have started accepting kritik-style debates as serious in the last two decades. Kritik used to be considered a bad faith technique but nowadays it’s considered a smart “trick” to win arguments. It’s when a debate participant doesn’t engage in debating the subject on its own merits, but instead challenges the premise of the question or a premise of the opponent’s position.
Crude example:
- I believe climate change is exaggerated because the Summers haven’t gotten notably hotter.
- If you say that, then you are unaware and uninformed. You must be watching Fox News.
Another:
- I think we are in a cost of living crisis, because every year, more US men are in crippling debt.
- Wow, look at your use of ableist misogynist language! Way to pretend women don’t suffer with debt 13% more than men!
Another:
- As society, we should be respectful of others online, because internet is an important (and sometimes only) social network some people have.
- Social media is unnatural, harmful and should be banned.
These are three failed debates, in each there is no clash of opinions, and no side provided meaningfully stronger arguments to win the debate. In fact, the two debate opponents stated opinions on different subjects entirely. And yet nowadays, this is how most people debate, it is considered appropriate, even in academia. In politics, this technique is considered a total winner.
So it is a bit like refusing to engage with the basic axioms when arguing mathematical proofs and just saying “math is for nerds”. We have totally accepted that as normal, as a society.
Crude example:
- I believe climate change is exaggerated because the Summers haven’t gotten notably hotter.
- If you say that, then you are unaware and uninformed. You must be watching Fox News.
Another:
- I think we are in a cost of living crisis, because every year, more US men are in crippling debt.
- Wow, look at your use of ableist misogynist language! Way to pretend women don’t suffer with debt 13% more than men!
Another:
- As society, we should be respectful of others online, because internet is an important (and sometimes only) social network some people have.
- Social media is unnatural, harmful and should be banned.
These are three failed debates, in each there is no clash of opinions, and no side provided meaningfully stronger arguments to win the debate. In fact, the two debate opponents stated opinions on different subjects entirely. And yet nowadays, this is how most people debate, it is considered appropriate, even in academia. In politics, this technique is considered a total winner.
So it is a bit like refusing to engage with the basic axioms when arguing mathematical proofs and just saying “math is for nerds”. We have totally accepted that as normal, as a society.