MisterYudi: I always had a funny feeling when they had “The Big Debate” in camp, and what you’ve said helped me understand why.
If arguing is an intellectual exercise (and the cases I referred to “In real life” where I could take both sides), then a good orator should be able to argue both sides of the coin. When the purpose of the argument is just to get your brain ticking, and because you enjoy the banter of a good ol’ chinwag, then I understand your challenge.
If, however, you are arguing about right and wrong, there shouldn’t be two sides to the coin. There is one objective truth, and you just have to look carefully and find it. It isn’t a Pros v. Cons; there is no weighing up. There is one Emes. Being able to pinpoint the emes in a moral dilemma is a skill to be treasured.
If Bikush haEmes is the purpose of the discussion, you shouldn’t want to or be able to see the other side. Once you have determined what you feel is the Rotzon Hashem, arguing the other side should not come naturally at all; I would feel an idiot trying to explain the other tzad.
The “few topics currently on the front page” are not the type of thing I feel it constructive to attempt arguing the other tzad.
#CRDSYAC