This is a special post for quick takes by leogao. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
in the Senate of the US Congress, there is a "nuclear option" for overriding filibusters; a parliamentary method that can be used to ram legislation through. both sides generally agree to use it sparingly, because it's a symmetric weapon.
i think there is a similar lever in arguments that is best left untouched if your goal is to actually find the truth. there is a type of argument that can be deployed in a wide range of circumstances, and is very hard to rebut except with even more nuclear arguments. the most extreme example is, suppose you are discussing the strength of some piece of evidence, and you say "well but it's impossible to truly know that, because we can't rule out the possibility that the entire external world is fake, a la Descartes's demon." or, "actually your argument is equally as conceptual as mine, because there's no such thing as empirical evidence, since all evidence must be filtered through our minds and reason applied". these kinds of arguments can be completely unbeatable and also utterly useless for answering actual questions we care about.
this is closely related to the idea of an argument that proves too much, though not all arguments that prove too much are completely nuclear.