ETA: Another possible heuristic: If the other party insists on attacking your position, but is unwilling to explicitly defend the one they want you to adopt against attack, that is probably also a bad sign.
By “explicitly defend”, do you mean “specify”?
Here’s another heuristic: if they criticize what you’re saying, but don’t provide any positive claims of their own when asked. It’s much easier to attack an idea as flawed than it is to prove an alternative idea is better than it.
Just a heuristic, remember. I agree there are legitimate purposes for problem stating without problem solving, but problem solving almost always needs to be at least the implicit goal of an argument or it will go nowhere.
By “explicitly defend”, do you mean “specify”?
Here’s another heuristic: if they criticize what you’re saying, but don’t provide any positive claims of their own when asked. It’s much easier to attack an idea as flawed than it is to prove an alternative idea is better than it.
It seems like this would cover Devil’s Advocate cases too, though. I do that all the time with friends.
[ETA: usually involves political discussion, because I know people who have strong political opinions but I try to avoid having too many myself.]
Sounds like it’s not worth them spending time trying to convince you?
That assumes trying to convince is the only point of having a discussion.
Just a heuristic, remember. I agree there are legitimate purposes for problem stating without problem solving, but problem solving almost always needs to be at least the implicit goal of an argument or it will go nowhere.