I agree, though would add that it's not even so much about the exhaustion as it is that being 100% open all the time can also lead to intentionally misleading data being processed.
For example, I would assume most people have been the third party in a situation where two friends are in an argument and want someone to rule on it. Maybe it's just my friends that are that petty, but I end up in this position a lot. As they present it, often I just don't have enough information to make an informed decision; the tidbits they present me are quite obviously the well fought over talking points they devised and I have neither the background nor the education to intelligently comment on the argument most of the time. Relying on my gut sometimes is necessary (issues of emotion, what should person A do, etc), but it's not always the best option.
We can't be 100% ready and educated for every single issue. In fact, constantly changing the issue and bringing up others is a rather devious debate tactic, and also an informal fallacy. It's deceptive, and it can give the illusion that a position is stronger than it really is simply because it was prepared sooner and has more information immediately available than the opposition is able to bring up at that time. It seems strong at first glance, but it doesn't always hold up under scrutiny, but with constantly shifting topics and arguments, it's not possible to give such proper scrutiny.
Avoidance isn't just about self-preservation, it's about being able to rationally interpret the information you are presented. It's why I often find debates online so difficult because the discussion can change so rapidly that it's not possible to give claims reasonable treatment. It's also sometimes why I find it fascinating, because the rapid flow of information is also very addictive.
For example, I would assume most people have been the third party in a situation where two friends are in an argument and want someone to rule on it. Maybe it's just my friends that are that petty, but I end up in this position a lot. As they present it, often I just don't have enough information to make an informed decision; the tidbits they present me are quite obviously the well fought over talking points they devised and I have neither the background nor the education to intelligently comment on the argument most of the time. Relying on my gut sometimes is necessary (issues of emotion, what should person A do, etc), but it's not always the best option.
We can't be 100% ready and educated for every single issue. In fact, constantly changing the issue and bringing up others is a rather devious debate tactic, and also an informal fallacy. It's deceptive, and it can give the illusion that a position is stronger than it really is simply because it was prepared sooner and has more information immediately available than the opposition is able to bring up at that time. It seems strong at first glance, but it doesn't always hold up under scrutiny, but with constantly shifting topics and arguments, it's not possible to give such proper scrutiny.
Avoidance isn't just about self-preservation, it's about being able to rationally interpret the information you are presented. It's why I often find debates online so difficult because the discussion can change so rapidly that it's not possible to give claims reasonable treatment. It's also sometimes why I find it fascinating, because the rapid flow of information is also very addictive.