[smsm42]

As it turns out, almost nobody actually wants a good faith argument. Public people that routinely engage in good faith arguments, with carefully considering opposing viewpoints, scrupulously and honestly analyzing evidence and making conclusion based on the strength of the argument presented - are routinely attacked for being harmful to whatever cause the activists prefer, not seeing the larger point, enabling the $BAD_GUYS, playing into the hands of $MORE_BAD_GUYS, being motivated by $ISM and $PHOBIA, and get whole online communities organized with a sole purpose of bringing them down, deplatforming them, de-employing them and generally getting them to stop what they are doing.

OTOH, the bad faith arguers are getting praise in the media, adoration from their peers, popularity, well-paid speaking opportunities, pompous awards and get their bad argument - which is usually much simpler and palatable than a good one - endlessly repeated and praised. Sometimes even taught to large groups of people as the paradigm they have to conform to from now on.

[ithkuil]

This. The "other side"'s bad faith arguments are often times so outrageous and patently wrong that even "your side" participates in spreading them and amplifying them by pointing fingers at them. It's like one side has the moral obligation to "keep watch" on the other side and keep finding arguments to remind people that the other side is dangerous and cannot be left unchecked in spreading these lies.

[agsqwe]

That's an interesting point. What can we do as a society to fix this?

[smsm42]

Stop promoting bad faith arguers, even if you agree with the conclusion? Stop mobbing people for "enabling" $BAD_GUYS and start praising people for catching and dismantling bad arguments even if the argument served the cause which you agree with? I am not seeing this happening much though, it'd require saint-level commitment to the quality of argument which probably not many are capable of and not many would consider a good thing to do.