First, I'm not crazy about the way that this debate has been structured because I do not think that arguing on both sides show a lack of opinion. However, I also do not think that it always shows neutrality.

There are a number of instances where is might make sense for people to play both sides. For instance, a person's view may evolve over the course of a debate and it might makes sense for them to switch sides. Likewise, a person may be interested in favoring/opposing a specific sub-point on the other side.

Normally, even if one side is ultimately right, both sides of an argument normally have valid points, and it is only beneficial to advertise the valid points of all sides so you can better discern the invalid points.

If you don't choose to see the point of view of the other party, you will ultimately become very dogmatic and zealous in your particular view. That doesn't mean you can't favour a side. Just be intellectually honest.

Nobody knows what's right, but I think we all have a preference. I think the most important part of an argument is that the people on either side know that they are talking about. If you argue both sides, you can help shape either side's argument which will in turn help people understand the more important aspects of each argument.

I'm not sure, but it could possibly maybe be that they dont know

Arguing both sides is essential to get the best education possible. Without arguing both sides, no one would ever change their opinion. Trust me, when you debate the other side, you learn lots. That's why they force real debaters (Policy, LD, PuFo, Parli) to debate both sides.

It shows you weigh the pros and cons.

As a literature student, I have to do this all the time. Often, our initial reaction to a situation is to state the side which we have more support for and then react violently to the rebuttal by the other side of an issue, cementing ourselves to one side and possibly limiting our own growth. Examining both sides of a topic before committing ourselves or remaining neutral until further developments make one option a clear favourite are better that fighting blindly for the side that first appeals.

While it can be understood why someone might want provide an argument for more than one side of the issue as an example, it makes little sense for a person to seriously argue on both sides of the fence. While a simple acknowledgment of the opposition is often both necessary and polite, two thoroughly thought out arguments in direct opposition of each other does not show a debater's range of abilities as many might think. Instead it is directly indicative of one of two things.

In one case it may be a debater attempting to "show off" by displaying his or her debating prowess and knowledge. Or it could simply indicate that the debtor doesn't really have an opinion on the subject. While neither of these are wrong, both are qualities that can easily be and should be improved on.

You need to pick one side and stick to it. While you can acknowledge that someone makes a good point or if they convince you to abandon your viewpoint you can argue on the other side, you should not do it to show that you can argue well or that you have multiple personalities.

Based on my past history on this site it shows a real lack of, not only, opinion, but also, and commitment.

I will take this question to be referring to people who do not have an established opinion on the matter. The fact is those who have thought out the issue and have fully established their personal position often have many reasons for arguing both sides, the reason never being lack of opinion or neutrality. But the person of more shallow reasoning will often argue both sides, not because they desire to remain neutral on the issue, but because they have no opinion on the matter, and therefore, have no foundation on which a single-sided argument can be established.

If you can't make up your mind, you have no opinion.

Ever been of two minds? Its just like having two opinions right. So maybe you just see it both ways.

This argument is a symptom of US brainwashing and only a symptom of US brainwashing. There are three positions on any hypothesis:- convinced of falsehood, convinced of truth, or undecided.

If you cannot take a clear position on a hypothesis, you qualify as undecided.

However the real bugbear here is that peoiple can't see that some arguments overrule others. For example, my usual argument is that 911 is an inside job, and its quite an interesting argument to use as a model.

In this debate, for example, the best argument against the hypothesis I have heard is that "someone would have leaked the details of the crime" Now this sounds likely at first hearing. But then there's the forensic evidence that explosives were preplanted in all three buildings, which is conclusive and forensic.

That means that while I accept the fact that one of the US govdernment's key difficulties would be how to stop core insiders going public on the issue, the fact is that they DID manage to stop the core insiders informing the public, and we know, because we can see the evidence for explosives at ae911truth.org and the journal for 911 studies..

Now, this is all well and good, but pretending that because I accept the government would have had to pull off some skillful bullying/bribery/ media manipulation to manage to keep your average dumb American comfortable in the belief that 19 Arabs did it, does NOT mean I am arguing both sides.

It simply means that we have something else to work out a rational theory for, given the proofs.

To "argue both sides" on a subject like this doesn't demonstrate "neutrality", but BIAS IN FAVOUR of the official hypothesis, because you either reject, or are ignorant of, solid physical evidence disproving that theory.

In conclusion, arguing both sides when one side has presented compelling evidence is NOT neutrality, it is, instead, intellectual insecurity in the quality of your own judgement and convictions.

Or in the words of the debate: "lack of opinion"