That's bullshit though. On many issues, one or both sides don't have any argument beyond "me not like". But that's enough, if you can find enough people that feel the same way.
No, that's actually a very insightful observation. The process of taking your opponent's argument, improving it and defeating its stronger form is sometimes known as "steelmanning"[0].
"If you’re interested in being on the right side of disputes, you will refute your opponents' arguments. But if you're interested in producing truth, you will fix your opponents' arguments for them. To win, you must fight not only the creature you encounter; you [also] must fight the most horrible thing that can be constructed from its corpse."[1]
If the other side's argument boils down to "me not like", then you have your job made even easier for you. Seeing the stronger arguments for their position and how (and where exactly) it still falls apart can be enlightening to your conversation partner.
Conversely, if you can't fathom why a reasonable person could hold the opinion your partner holds, it means you don't understand the issue itself at all. Most people are not dumb, their beliefs always form some structure that's plausible for them. It usually doesn't take much work to build yourself a model of someone else's beliefs, if you're willing to do so.
The only requirement, obviously, is that the other person at least tries to be honest. I think most people are, but sometimes you need to first work around their (and yours) ego issues.
This reaction feels to me to be exactly what the article (and even the old debate club maxim) is hoping to have us consider.
On most of the pressing social issues of our time, I can at least identify a considered point from the other side - [a]theism, pro-[life|choice], gun-control, liberalism/conservatism, you name it. I often disagree heavily with the other side, but that doesn't invalidate their particular perspective. It always comes down to some axioms each side assumes that are inviolate, in tandem with a personal utility function judging certain outcomes more important or more just than others.
Take pro-life/choice for instance; here I am personally very strongly on the pro-choice side, but I can't deny that the other side at least has these points which they evaluate differently from me:
- at what point do we consider an embryo alive and sentient? We reduce lifeforms to black and white like this all the time, yet we know there to be a wide range of grey in between
- considering it is valid for people to consider a fetus as alive and sentient, where do we draw the line on saying it is okay to terminate its life?
- even as we accept that it is okay to abort a fetus and a future potential life, does it not come down to a value judgment whether a woman's right to her own body, and her right not be held in thrall to rapists, supercedes that of a potential human life?
Acknowledging an argument on its merits does not automatically put it on the same level playing field or "elevate" it to be equal to the other side. Some arguments can have holes picked through them and can be successfully dismantled if not substantiated fully against all attacks. But this can only happen when both sides play by the rules to evaluate each other objectively, without weaseling out and dismissing the other side with reductionism. Granted, you have no control of the other, and can't compel them to play by your rules, but you will still be able to come to your own truths if you can internally argue on their behalf, and be more satisfied your reasoning for it.