The fact that this policy may contribute to an information cascade is (mostly) a cost to other people rather than a cost to yourself. If your goal is the truth, the presence of this cost is not relevant.

The real question is whether the beliefs of others are a reliable guide to the truth, and if not, what is better. Judging the quality of arguments has IMO not been shown to be something that most people can successfully implement - too much opportunity for bias to creep in.