Arguing both sides?

Like JackieB I find it hard to firmly make a decisiion. Without self doubting afterwards.
I'm a Pisces, and their sign is 2 fishes swimming in opposite directions. And I hate hostile quarrels so give in easily to keep the peace.

Like most people, we were taught to make a case for both sides of a controversy, but I don't think I ever deliberately argue for something I don't believe in 'in real life' - life's too short!

I do think that it's important to really consider where the other 'side' is coming from, though. For one thing, they may be right, and for another, you have to be able to predict their opposition to your point of view if you are going to be able to argue against it. I think that's the stage at which I am most likely to change my mind - if I am wondering what 'they' are going to say, think of something, then can't find a way to counter it, then I really reconsider my own point of view, and sometimes change it altogether. Other times, though, I become further entrenched, as I have more reasons for feeling as I do.

I think that's different from simply 'seeing both sides' but rejecting the other one, and it's very different from sitting on the fence, but maybe I'm saying the same thing in a different way.

Me too Urm. Then I think, sheesh, what sort of a person will they think I am ? Some bitter ole bid but then it is fun, sometimes, too. Gets us talking at least. When I was at school in London they used to teach us to take opposing sides in debates and never believe anything without questions.

Remember - opinions first, arguments second!

Like Urm I like to throw the other viewpoint into the discussion to get a response, especially when the posts are too one sided.
What worries me is how Universities seem to be banning anything that challenges the students' views in case it upsets them. That is a dreadful way to go. They need to hear the other side not stay hidden in their 'safe spaces'.

Unpeaceful.

I used to do that with my ex.
It never took long for the peace loving hippy (him) to get raging mad and start saying very peaceful things.

I often play Devils Advocate on GN threads.

I'm a big fan of playing "devil's advocate" - I often do it with my husband, even when I actually believe the same as him. When I did English Language for O Level we had to write, amongst other things, what were called "argumentative essays". We were given a subject, for example fox hunting, then had to state the case for both sides and finally giving our own opinion (with reasons why) at the end of the essay.

@ Bluebellwould of course it can! This is the basis of HE, doing a degree for example teaches you how to argue with evidence to back it up…

How many time do we start with ‘according to’!! ?

Yes, though I will admit to being out of practice at this!

In common with one or two other posters, I had a teacher who would encourage us to argue the opposite point of view. This is really hard if you already have a firm opinion on the subject matter!

Like a previous poster I grew up in a very non pc household and I have changed many of my views as I matured. I do, however, understand where my parents were coming from and why they thought the way they did.
I have changed my views on certain things after my children explained their reasoning behind their views. They told me things that I didn’t know and it changed the way I thought.
I wouldn’t say I argue from both sides though I just try and put myself in other peoples shoes in most discussions

I have never been able to form opinions. Bothe sides convince me when they are speaking. I hate having to decide in elections.

I'm open to change and was brought up being able to see both sides. You need to be able to listen to another person's point of view and accept that they are entitled to it because life experience is different for everyone. Nowadays this seems to be disappearing. Debate and discussion used to be encouraged. At school we used to have to write arguments for both sides. Cancel culture seems to be eroding this.

But grandetante, those are hardly the topics that anyone can support, but I am sure, if pushed and in proper debate I could extoll both Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson. I mean you can put your trust in Jeremy Corbyn never to make a wrong decision - because he never makes decisions and you can believe every word Boris says, because he never tells the truth.

Yes, I too remember those debating club exercises where you had to argue both for and against something.

I don't think it works well in real life though.

I hope I am always willing to hear the opposite point of view when discussing anything, but there are obviously topics where I would find it quite impossible to endorse the opposite point of view.

I cannot for example even as an academic exercise endores capital punishment, fascism, racism, slavery, child abuse, rape, spousal abuse, or cruelty to animals.

I don't suppose any of you would either.

Can your mind be changed?
Scientific studies have shown we make our decisions based in emotional pathways laid down in childhood, or even before birth. Based on what thought makes us comfortable.
We are unaware we reinforce this process daily.
Debating is a construct. A game if you like that isnt played out in real life. As is good cop/bad cop scenario.

To expose the way we reach our decisions, use an emotive subject such as sex work/pornography for example. Which plays directly on a hard wired 'need' for a man to be engaged in sex.
A debate could put all the facts to a user of pornography and or sex workers. Of how it is changing his personality, his perception of women. Explain how these women are treated badly and its just a job to them, and many other straightforward reasons not to engage.
But it will have little impact on the behaviour.
I use sex for illustration purpose only.
In reality people make their decisions based on lots of previous emotional perceptions, the most influential is fear.

You can listen to another point of view and learn about what the other person is saying but if the person arguing their point firmly believes that they are right and that you are wrong and they are not prepared to learn anything from you then there is no point in calling it a debate.
Stating something is a fact on GN is rarely a debate.
We can ask for evidence, which sometimes shows a fact to be true and sometimes shows the ‘fact’ is simply one person’s interpretation of it.

It's rare for me to change my mind.
It gets on my wick when people whole heartedly believe something one week, then do an about turn the next.
Actually learning things which change your point of view is a different matter though, as I have found out...

Surely, it is whether you are capable of arguing both sides. It is not something that we do in ordinary life, but I did a lot of debating at university - a situation where the only thing that matters ia winning the debate - and I could persuasively argue either side of almost any debate - and did.

What you never do is pretend to believe the side you are arguing on. For the duration of the debate you must rally believe in the cause you are voting for. I mean it is only just an hour. It is what actors do all the time.

If you feel strongly about something and wish to win someone over to your way of thinking, you need first thoroughly know their mindset and fully understand all the arguments in favour of their side, because only then can you use their arguments to convince them you are right, or that there is some merit in the opposite view point.

This is why people of any political party, who spend their time abusing their opponents, while at the same time trying to win them over to vote their cause are so misguided, apart from the fact that people who you abuse usually end up with an implacable dislike of you, but if you are to get them think differently you need first to understand why they vote as they do, and then use that to win them over. There is no better way of doing that than letting them see you understand their views and where they are coming from.

Think about that famous interrogation technique known as good guy/bad guy. After a doseof nastiness, the good guy will come in, sympathise with the suspect, understand their point of view and then quietly turn it round so that the suspect tells things because he thinks the good guy is on his side.

Galaxy

I listened to podcast recently where they did that, took the opposite point of view from what they actually believed, and argued the case. I didnt think it really worked, I could tell they were pretending to 'believe' so to speak.

That’s what debating clubs at public schools are all about.
Mr Johnson and James OBrien both excelled at this.

A woman once explained her apparently racist viewpoint to me, based on facts.
I totally understood why she felt that way, based on the facts, but didn't agree with what she thought should be done about it.

I can usually see good points to both sides of an argument, then form a reasoned opinion, on balance, from the facts.
What do you think your 'opponent' would say that they are doing, though? Everyone thinks that their opinion is reasoned and based on 'the facts'; but there are very few absolute facts - most things are a matter of interpretation.

I don't think it is easy to feel strongly about your own point of view unless you have understood the alternative perspective.

You don't have to agree with it, but if you don't understand a viewpoint, you can't argue against it.

I can usually see good points to both sides of an argument, then form a reasoned opinion, on balance, from the facts.

Some people seem to just hold an opinion without even considering other viewpoints - so don't consider and dismiss them.

They then have the cheek to insist that their views are 'equally valid' but can't explain why.