One thing the UBI debate has convinced me of is that making bad arguments in favor of good ideas can be genuinely harmful to those good ideas
-
feel like a truly good idea transcends partisan boundaries and recruits support *despite* the presence of bad arguments bad arguments are the enemy of *mediocre* arguments, because they must keep the same company
No, bad arguments are the most compelling because they are the most reflexive/least rigorous, therefore the most intuitive. What you call bad arguments are actually the mediocre ones. Mediocre arguments do the most harm rhetorically because they require thought but don't pay off.
