Additionally, if it really were a reality that we all observed, there would be no harm whatsoever in saying the quiet part out loud. This "trolling" is literally just interrogating the argument that's been presented. The only reason to fear it is that your conclusion won't hold up unless the reasoning that lead you to it is concealed.
Let's say that one really does have a point, that would stand on it's own if you were more explicit, and someone asks you to elaborate on why you came to that conclusion. What exactly do you lose by doing so? What rhetorical ground has your interlocutor gained? What is the proposed mechanism of this supposed bad faith tactic?
The only possible answer I can see is, "a moment of your time," which is pretty unconvincing. If you don't think the question is worth your time, fine, don't answer it. But there's no scenario where answering it harms your argument, but you still had a solid argument.
It's just that people disagree with you about what is supposedly self evident and real.
Let's say that one really does have a point, that would stand on it's own if you were more explicit, and someone asks you to elaborate on why you came to that conclusion. What exactly do you lose by doing so? What rhetorical ground has your interlocutor gained? What is the proposed mechanism of this supposed bad faith tactic?
The only possible answer I can see is, "a moment of your time," which is pretty unconvincing. If you don't think the question is worth your time, fine, don't answer it. But there's no scenario where answering it harms your argument, but you still had a solid argument.
It's just that people disagree with you about what is supposedly self evident and real.