When they have actual stances, or at least play at it just to argue, they're usually bad. Relying on the people they are arguing with being brainlets since most dont want to bother. I mean, sometimes they address something partially real or overlooked and shake up the groupthink but usually they are just fighting people who wont seriously counter-signal or randos so w/e
People do genuinely overstate their case, lack nuance, and imply a level of cognizance to events which makes it conspiracy-fagging. No argument here

No (workable) solution though (that isnt just leading a horse to water and making it drink, ie do something it isnt receptive to), just a new vector of attack which people will be unfamiliar with or try to back away from weakly rather than dispute the basis of it (it's usually prefabbed and misleading at its core, relying on you accepting everything up to it OR it's based on interactions with people who dont know better OR is highly restricted, focusing on an asperct of something without illuminating or deflating context)

Finds currency among unserious and shallow people who like throwing stones. Not constructive, and my disposition dislikes that.