Ironically I think you've hit the nail on the head, but not for the reasons that are obvious: each side specifically frames the issue in a rigid fashion so it certainly appears obvious that they are morally in the right.
Hence the binary nature of the conversations.
I take the approach that one should be able to CONVINCINGLY argue the opposite side before having a meaningful opinion on the issue. If you can't do that because you view the other side as insane or fully incorrect, then it might be you that's insane. I'm not talking about the-Earth-is-flat type issues, but issues of the day (whatever that day is over the course of time).
While I agree with what you are going for, I also struggle to figure out how to describe it, as the whole problem here is that people (and I am including everyone) can't obviously tell the difference between something that is simply falsifiable and something which is murky; like, the entire premise in some sense of these rigid framings is that "if you can't see how" [ "murdering a child that you might even be complicit in causing to exist" / "forcing a woman to carry to term a baby at great cost to her health and destruction of her livelihood that might literally have been forced upon her by rape or coercion"] (and I am sorry if I accidentally sound sided here in either direction as my goal is merely to provide two arguments people make strongly on the topic as it got mentioned in this thread: I am not trying to carefully balance an actual debate on this topic) "is wrong then you probably also believe the Earth is flat". We can't push for the premise that "you absolutely need to be able to convincingly argue the opposite side of of an issue to have a meaningful opinion on it" and then make exceptions for "the-Earth-is-flat type issues" (which I can like, provide an attempt to defend but it comes out sarcastic as it essentially involves knowingly working with limited data and constantly stating as such... it just sounds like "well without knowing I am stupid, I might think X").
But yeah the struggle to find the right argument, rather than to win an argument...
Sadly the second of those is, I think, the more common. Interesting to see from your example how stupid it makes us -- if I try to win an argument without understanding the alternative, the the thing I gain most, is a reduction in my ability to reason
Ironically I think you've hit the nail on the head, but not for the reasons that are obvious: each side specifically frames the issue in a rigid fashion so it certainly appears obvious that they are morally in the right.
Hence the binary nature of the conversations.
I take the approach that one should be able to CONVINCINGLY argue the opposite side before having a meaningful opinion on the issue. If you can't do that because you view the other side as insane or fully incorrect, then it might be you that's insane. I'm not talking about the-Earth-is-flat type issues, but issues of the day (whatever that day is over the course of time).