Sure, as a debate strategy doing the "Yes" meme is interesting, but only if you mean to gain something by it.
When the Republicans call Bernie a socialist, and Bernie says, "yes, and?" that's because Bernie is a socialist, and he's defusing the nature of the charge. Socialism is a valid, defensible position. Being gay is valid. Opposing a North Korean dictatorship is valid.
If I call you a luddite, and you say "yes", then I say "great you're a crazy person, bring in the men with the white coats." You didn't win anything, luddism isn't defensible. Arguing that we should regress to a agrarian society with a "restriction of automation to only the most dangerous forms of work" isn't sane or defensible or interesting, it's just crazy person talk.
you've absolutely fallen into the hole and discredited yourself.
You've unashamedly revealed a lack of understanding and demonstrated
extraordinary inflexibility and lack of curiosity at the same time.
You've basically said "Indeed, I am a disingenuous interlocutor"
It's not interesting! If you argue I should light my pants on fire, or shoot myself out of a canon, or dunk my head in tar bucket, what am I supposed to respond with?
"That's nuts!"
It's not a lack of curiosity, the position the opponent is arguing doesn't have legs and that's readily apparent.
"Renounce your sinful ways of sewing machines and egg beaters! RETVRN TO TRADITION!"
Like, what? That doesn't deserve a dignified response, there's no argument there. If anything, engaging grants it a kind of credibility that is more harmful than just saying "Move along sweetie, leave the crazy man be".
When the Republicans call Bernie a socialist, and Bernie says, "yes, and?" that's because Bernie is a socialist, and he's defusing the nature of the charge. Socialism is a valid, defensible position. Being gay is valid. Opposing a North Korean dictatorship is valid.
If I call you a luddite, and you say "yes", then I say "great you're a crazy person, bring in the men with the white coats." You didn't win anything, luddism isn't defensible. Arguing that we should regress to a agrarian society with a "restriction of automation to only the most dangerous forms of work" isn't sane or defensible or interesting, it's just crazy person talk.