There is no right and wrong side here, there is only your side and the other side. Both sides think they are the right side and the other side is the wrong side (obviously).
Debate works when each side thinks that the other side might have something worthwhile to contribute despite being wrong, even if that contribution is nothing more than capitulation. But if the other side is evil (rather than merely wrong) then even capitulation is no longer a viable option because evil cannot be allowed to merely resign and go about its business. Evil must be eliminated.
> There is no right and wrong side here, there is only your side and the other side. Both sides think they are the right side and the other side is the wrong side (obviously).
Obviously. That's why I put them in quotes. I was just following the example in your comment where there is a self-righteous "right" side, and the "wrong" side is wrong from their perspective.
I think the shared goals consensus and the logical reasoning I described is what makes it painfully obvious to wider public if there is true malice. Why not the "right" side use it?
Only if it has been shown in this way that the wrong side is actually wrong, but the imperfections of the system let them act and do evil, then warfare (which is what you seem to be describing, more or less) might be the next step.
What other classification is even a possibility when you paint one side as "evil"?
Whether the evilness of the "wrong" (with quotes) side matches reality or is a product of the non-evil ("right", with quotes) side's fallible model of the world was unclear from your comment, and I left it as such.
It looks like you aren't arguing with my main point, which is applicable to any side that thinks it's "right". I sincerely hope this approach prevails over abusing debate mechanics that you describe.
You are missing my point. Once one side decides the other is evil, it stops being about right and wrong (in the sense of objectively correct or incorrect). Re-read this:
> If one side has (say) convinced itself that the the other side is evil and duplicitous then this no longer works because 1) everything the other side says is viewed through the lens of evil and duplicity and 2) this evil and duplicity needs to be combated by any means necessary, up to and including presenting arguments that the first side knows are wrong but which it believes in good faith could allow it to prevail against evil and duplicity.
and pay particular attention to the passage that I highlighted here.
My point it is not an inevitability, if it happens it is at best regrettable and preventable, at worst the self-righteous side is in fact being the evil one by abusing the truth seeking mechanism.
Debate works when each side thinks that the other side might have something worthwhile to contribute despite being wrong, even if that contribution is nothing more than capitulation. But if the other side is evil (rather than merely wrong) then even capitulation is no longer a viable option because evil cannot be allowed to merely resign and go about its business. Evil must be eliminated.