The article would be better if it linked to the reasons for the no votes and critiqued them. Otherwise, it’s just low effort outrage bait. To be clear, I don’t think the no votes were justified. I just don’t like low effort outrage bait.
Responding to your opponent’s strongest argument is steelmanning, and it’s always good practice if you want to convince people instead of just get clicks.
The article would be better if it linked to the reasons for the no votes and critiqued them. Otherwise, it’s just low effort outrage bait. To be clear, I don’t think the no votes were justified. I just don’t like low effort outrage bait.
Edit: Not https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
https://web.archive.org/web/20211127052643/https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/
Bothsidesing idiocy is idiotic.
It’s never “bothsidesing” if you take a position.
Responding to your opponent’s strongest argument is steelmanning, and it’s always good practice if you want to convince people instead of just get clicks.