Raw LLM Responses

It depends on the setting. If it's a debate, the goal isn't to be right or correct, but to win. Hitchens debate with Lennox comes to mind where in Hitchens relies on his rhetoric over his arguments. He masterfully changes topic in areas he's weak against and Lennox humors him. He's a master at reframing. There's not as much incentive to bring clarity or certainty to specific subjects in philosophy. Why would people search for a possible refutation of their life's work? Take utilitarianism for instance. Mill himself acknowledged the subjective and arbitrary nature of his entire worldview and tried to answer it with competent judges. However, even this just relinquished judgements to another arbitrary authority. This entire framework is self admittedly arbitrary and it's still espoused to this very day. Nobody likes being told they're completely wrong as it makes them feel stupid or foolish so to preserve the ego, there's an incentive not to think critically.