Comparing rival weapons against each other answers questions that make no sense

Evidence

Both sides cannot simultaneously strike first, and these capabilities can never be matched against each other. The degree of first-strike capability that the United States needed was not a function of the damage that the Soviets could have done if they had struck first. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2606 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

The extreme form of this approach might be the discussion technique of Street Epistemology, which was developed by the American philosophy professor Peter Boghossian specifically for the purpose of converting people to atheism . A substantive argumentation is completely avoided and the believer is instead repeatedly asked which method he used to reach his conviction and why he considers this method suitable. The answers are summarized by the questioner and used as a basis to ask for the next justification. Critics of the method complain that it challenges the rhetorical ability to clearly formulate and justify one’s own position rather than the belief’s content that should actually be criticized . Especially in the case of a clear intellectual gap, there is also the danger that the believer feels rhetorically outsmarted and even less taken seriously. — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 242 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Comparing rival weapons head-to-head obscured whether each force could actually do its job — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2602; First-strike capabilities of rivals can never be meaningfully matched against each other; Comparing rival first-strike damages is logically meaningless since both cannot strike first — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2606 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Comparing rival first-strike damages is logically meaningless since both cannot strike first #exemplifies (0.93) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2606
• Question-based debate techniques can backfire by humiliating the rhetorical rather than testing the belief #complicates (0.73) — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 242