Is ghosting ever acceptable?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is ghosting ever acceptable?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

Ghosting is acceptable in some cases

You're smuggling in "some cases" to dodge the real issue: you can't define which ones without contradicting yourself. If it's acceptable when convenient, isn't it just an excuse dressed up as a principle? What makes your exception different from everyone else's?

You say that I can't define it but that's your supposition, ghosting is acceptable if you see red flags of the other person being a liar,someone who manipulates or is evil

Red flags don't justify silence, they justify *clarity*. You're confusing self-protection with decency. A direct "I'm not interested" takes thirty seconds and protects you just as much. Why does recognizing danger require you to vanish like a coward instead of setting a boundary?

Vanishing like a coward is an ad Hominem fallacy,with those people is better to walked away right away,they are dangerous

False equivalence. Walking away and ghosting aren't the same thing. You can leave *and* send one message. Calling someone dangerous doesn't erase their right to know where they stand. Why does removing yourself require erasing them?

Ghosting is justified just in some cases,if the other person is dangerous is better to just end every thing right away

You're conflating "dangerous" with "uncomfortable." If someone's genuinely threatening, block them everywhere. But most people you'd ghost aren't dangerous, they're just inconvenient. Which is it, really?

That's why it is justificable to do it in a few cases but not always

You've just admitted ghosting requires a judgment call about who "deserves" a message. That's the problem. You're the judge of dangerousness, and everyone thinks their case is special. Why should your assessment trump their right to closure?