How do I argue for something I don't believe in? (Quora)

I participated in the debating society when I was at school, and I ran a school debating society when I became a teacher. When I taught philosophy, one of my methods was to discover as quickly as possible which side of a question was favoured by the students, and then argue the opposite.

I cannot sufficiently stress how vital it is to be able to argue from your opponents’ position. To begin with, if you cannot anticipate their arguments, they will take you by surprise in the debate and embarrass you.If you cannot anticipate their arguments, you cannot prepare answers to their arguments in advance and have them ready when required.

And finally, how do you even know which side you are on, if you have never taken the trouble to learn why your opponents think differently? You will be incapable of rational decision because you have only ever heard one side of the case. You will have to resort to bluster and prejudice because you won’t be able to reason. This is not a good idea.

I draw your attention to the method by which Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the UK, decided which side of the Brexit argument he would choose. He wrote two articles, one explaining why we should remain in the EU, and one explaining why we should leave, and then compared them in order to discover which was the more persuasive. Some people attacked him over this for having no convictions; I thought, here at least, he displayed a preference for reason over emotion.

You should try this approach. It will be of lasting benefit.

Let's Try Talking

The importance of calm, reasoned discussion of disagreements cannot be overstated. If the objective is to find the right answer, or even an acceptable answer, then a polite and respectful exchange of views is likely to be the best way to proceed.

In the past week I have encountered two ways of preventing discussion. One was to declare a topic so sensitive that even a polite discussion had to be terminated for fear of giving offence. The other was to shout so loudly and be so abusive that reply was impossible, even if the person who disagreed was not intimidated by the aggressive display.

The way I see it, we either have to go on living together after our disagreements or erect permanent walls of hostility to keep out those we call 'them'. Banning discussion or howling down those of a contrary view are both ways of ensuring that disagreement will be followed by ill-feeling. Resentment is likely to simmer away; everybody is convinced that they would have been proved right if only talks had continued and nobody's understanding is improved in any way.

Both methods of suppressing discussion are ultimately self-defeating. Not only can you not win a discussion that you do not allow to take place, you are, more importantly, prevented from coming closer to your neighbour, understanding his point of view and making allowances for things that are of little importance to you and of great importance to him.

Even when points of view seem irreconcilable, it is important not to stop talking. Retreating into an entrenched and isolated hostility to contrary views is the way to conflict born out of enduring ignorance.