So are you suggesting that it impossible for someone else to construct an unbiased argument for you?
You can never construct an unbiased argument for anything, except by an improbable coincidence that any wise person will refuse to believe in.
After all, it’s only a small step to observe that it’s impossible to ever know whether someone else has the motives of the campaign manager in this case.
Valid evidence is valid, whatever the motives of the one who cites it; the world’s stupidest person may say the sun is shining, but that doesn’t make it dark out. But you’d be wise to take responsibility for adding up the evidence yourself, and try to check one or more sides to see if any arguments were omitted. (Just don’t expect the evidence to balance. It shouldn’t.)
You can never construct an unbiased argument for anything, except by an improbable coincidence that any wise person will refuse to believe in.
After all, it’s only a small step to observe that it’s impossible to ever know whether someone else has the motives of the campaign manager in this case.
Valid evidence is valid, whatever the motives of the one who cites it; the world’s stupidest person may say the sun is shining, but that doesn’t make it dark out. But you’d be wise to take responsibility for adding up the evidence yourself, and try to check one or more sides to see if any arguments were omitted. (Just don’t expect the evidence to balance. It shouldn’t.)