CreateDebate


Debate Info

28
22
It shows neutrality It shows lack of opinion
Debate Score:50
Arguments:25
Total Votes:70
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 It shows neutrality (16)
 
 It shows lack of opinion (9)

Debate Creator

pvtNobody(642) pic



Arguing Both Sides

What's the benefit

It shows neutrality

Side Score: 28
VS.

It shows lack of opinion

Side Score: 22
5 points

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.

Side: It shows neutrality
1 point

I agree. If you are a skeptic like me, you try to get all the points of view first, then distill them to their core arguments. You work out what you think is right, which may entail changing your opinion.

Another reason why you might argue both sides is that you only know of one point of view on a certain topic, and present those facts in order to elicit facts from an opposing point of view. (This is especially true with high school history, since you usually are only presented with one interpretation of an event). What you get might change your opinion.

Side: It shows neutrality

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.

Side: It shows neutrality
1 point

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.

Side: It shows neutrality

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

Side: It shows neutrality

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.

Side: It shows neutrality
1 point

Just because you have the ability to argue from various positions in the argument does not mean that you lack opinion. On the contrary, it shows that you have a broader opinion about the topic and have the maturity to see all sides, rather than being narrow-minded.

Side: It shows neutrality
1 point

The ability to see an argument from both points of view allows for a more informed decision to be made. There are more benefits to looking at where both sides are coming from then coming up with a list of informed advantages/disadvantages. This brings mutual understanding. When one can only accept one side it limits progress and shows closed-mindedness.

Side: It shows neutrality
1 point

I study many points of view and decide what is right for myself.

Side: It shows neutrality
1 point

Even though there's a side that you may agree more with—or completely agree with—a good debater has to be able to argue both sides. Think of it as this: you're given a topic, but you end up being on the side that you didn't want to be in. Even so, you have to be able to argue it to bring people on over to your side.

Arguing both sides does not show lack of opinion. Not only so, but if you think about it, it portrays a good debater because of how easy it is to switch from side to side, and still sound persuasive. Being able to argue both sides in a debate is highly important, because you never know if you're going to be stuck of the opposing side.

Side: It shows neutrality
1 point

It shows that you can see both sides. Not everything has to be black and white, there is a lot of gray in between and when you can see both sides you also tend to see some of that gray.

Side: It shows neutrality
0 points

It shows you weigh the pros and cons.

Side: It shows neutrality
0 points

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.

Side: It shows neutrality
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
2 points

It is absolutely important to understand both sides of the argument but it is not necessary to argue on both sides of the fence. In a debate forum, such as this one, it is easy to include qualifying statements to make it clear that one does not have an extreme view but it seems that in almost every case an individual leans in one direction or the other.

There is no reason for an individual in an online forum to immediately react to a topic. Time can and should be taken to research the topic so that that a more full and educated opinion can be formed.

Side: It shows lack of opinion
2 points

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.

Side: It shows lack of opinion

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

Side: It shows lack of opinion
2 points

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.

Side: It shows lack of opinion
1 point

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.

Side: It shows lack of opinion
skymto(113) Disputed
1 point

Agreeing with someone who has a more beneficial solution to the problem is not wrong nor indicative of multiple personalities. No one person has all the answers but working collectively is more productive than fighting to the bitter end.

Side: It shows neutrality
1 point

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

Side: It shows lack of opinion
Cthulhu(50) Disputed
1 point

Cake or Ice-Cream? You would probably choose different ones at different times, or may spend a while umming and erring over which you'd rather have. You still like both cake and ice-cream (and if you don't, my argument is still valid; people that strange have no place here) and not being able to alwas place one over the other does no mean you should not get any.

Side: It shows neutrality
pvtNobody(642) Disputed
2 points

The connection you draw between making a decision about desert and creating an opinion simply does not hold. While one's opinion can change one would have to have multiple personalities to hold multiple opinions on a subject at one time and true opinions do not randomly change based off of one's mood.

Side: It shows lack of opinion
-3 points

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

Side: It shows lack of opinion
0 points

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"

Side: It shows lack of opinion