But you can argue for anything. You might refuse to do so but the possibility is always there.
The problem with being able to argue for anything is that people use that ability to rationalize their preferred conclusions. But if someone finds a conclusion offensive, then they have the opposite problem that they’re unable to acknowledge valid arguments. I don’t think practicing that would make people more prone to rationalization.
Well, maybe except that part:
Points deducted if an observer can tell the student doesn’t really agree with the position they’re defending.
Understanding someone doesn’t have to involve pretending that you’re them.
But you can argue for anything. You might refuse to do so but the possibility is always there.
The problem with being able to argue for anything is that people use that ability to rationalize their preferred conclusions. But if someone finds a conclusion offensive, then they have the opposite problem that they’re unable to acknowledge valid arguments. I don’t think practicing that would make people more prone to rationalization.
Well, maybe except that part:
Understanding someone doesn’t have to involve pretending that you’re them.
Presumably one would wand to define “strong argument” in such a way that tend to to be more available for true things than for false things.
It involves you honestly being them for the duration of the discussion.