> Is it really arguing in good faith to put hypotheticals side by side, on an equal footing, with evidence?

Is it arguing in good faith to consider other perspectives outside of our own? Yes it is, and I consider the reverse to be in bad faith.

While I don't fully agree with Kant, I find the Universability of an approach to be a good filter for identifying not-okay actions that are justified by the perpetrators - sometimes me (a.k.a. the Silver Rule: "Don't do to unto others what you don't want to be done unto you")

My high school history teacher would share historical accounts and encourage us to analyze the authors motivations and biases.