The problem with sarcasm is that, when I use it, I'm not putting my own opinion out there to be critiqued, I'm only attacking the other guy's. I can change my argument at will and claim "I was only being ironic" with prior claims.
> "I can change my argument at will and claim "I was only being ironic" with prior claims."
This is solved by explicitly stating when you are being sarcastic, or following up the sarcastic paragraph with a paragraph that non-sarcastically explains your position.
> "The problem with sarcasm is that, when I use it, I'm not putting my own opinion out there to be critiqued, I'm only attacking the other guy's."
I don't think that is actually problematic. There are certain issues that I do not have strong feelings on one way or the other, so I consider my opinion on those issues to be of relatively little consequence. Nevertheless, I am still capable of analyzing and critiquing the merit of arguments made by others.
For instance, if the topic is tidal power stations being placed offshore of expensive private beach property (a topic that I do not care about one way or the other) and somebody objects that the view from those beaches will be destroyed, I might sarcastically quip that all transmission lines near golf courses and country clubs should be razed, because rich people should never be forced to gaze upon infrastructure. I would give this sarcastic quip because, although I don't really give a shit about tidal power, I can still recognize a ridiculous argument when I see one.
