> This is an incoherent straw man caricature of "the right". Unfortunately for us all, there are tons of people in every side of politics who hold incoherent sets of positions. They're the "sound of a potato rotating" [0] kind of folks.

I actually very much dislike labels such as "the right" and "the left", that said the "pro-life" movement as in the political movement that is trying to overturn Roe are very much exactly how I portrait them above. Name any prominent figure in the pro-life movement who also strongly opposes the death penalty.

> By "incoherent" I mean that I agree with you that it doesn't make sense for somebody to both be "pro-life" and also support the death penalty. But there are people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent.

> Why bother crafting arguments against the former (where you'll gain little if anything from winning) when you could against the latter (where you have a chance of changing the minds of a lot of people, if you make a strong argument)?

The issue is that the debate is not about convincing the fundamentalists, they can not be convinced, this is about pointing out the motivations of the fundamentalists to others. There is a very good book in German (unfortunately I do not believe there is an English translation): "Wie man mit Fundamentalisten diskutiert, ohne den Verstand zu verlieren: Anleitung zum subversiven Denken" which analyses forms of argumentation and historical debates and their philosophical underpinnings. One of the central concluding arguments is that in fighting totalitarism and fundamentalism the debate with a fundamentalist can will never convince them, because fundamentally their belief trumps rational arguments (something that fundamentalists on all sides of the spectrum consistently repeat), the debate should be to convince/warn the observers, to point out the inconsistencies, the real motivations.