Terrible arguments

 You need to study humanities because it is the only way to learn critical thinking, etc...  

Then explain how people in the humanities, the actual professors and prestigious intellectuals, propose and accept really terrible arguments?  How will the undergraduates studying these things be able to escape terrible arguments, or judge which arguments are better than others?  We cannot even agree about what a poem means. 

I'm not setting myself up as the arbiter of what a good or bad argument is.  But I am a professor of humanities (at least one of the humanities), and some arguments seem bad to me.  Is it because I didn't study enough humanities?  What if I and another humanist disagree about what a terrible argument is?  Who is going to decide who is right? A third humanist? A committee? 

(I'm not giving examples, because then we would be debating the merits of particular arguments. Maybe my example of a terrible argument is something you think is wonderful. That is the problem in the first place.)

***

I guess the shortcut is to think the left wing arguments are supported by critical thinking, and the right wing ones are right wing memes.  But then the critical thinking arguments disappears, because the right (left) answer is always obvious. It is "on the right side of history."  No thinking is required after all! No amount of humanities education fixes this.