[bryanrasmussen]

The assumption that there are always two intelligent sides to an issue is a pretty big assumption. If you understand both sides of an issue really deeply and you choose side B and are against side A, you should be able to argue intelligently for side A otherwise your choice of side B is not made intelligently, but this falls down on further examination.

If you believe that side B is correct and side A is incorrect given your deep understanding of the issue then an argument for side A is in some way not intelligent because you must keep out your most potent arguments for side B from your argument for side A - you must deny their existence in your head and thus argue from a less intelligent position than you normally would.

The ability to argue both sides is only really possible when all sides are considered trivial in their differences.

on edit: improved formatting for legibility.

[eru]

You should still be able to give the other side the best defense imaginable. (See 'steelmanning'.)

[bryanrasmussen]

ok, I've seen stellmanning? https://www.google.com/search?dcr=0&source=hp&q=stellmanning...

on edit: never mind, I see you mean steelmanning. However that does not really have anything to do with what I said, you should be able to give someone the best defence imaginable, but what if the best defence imaginable is shit compared to the other side. Then you cannot argue both sides equally, this does not mean you do not understand either side. It means one side is actually wrong, and the other is correct.

[eru]

Sorry, I can't spell. It's steelmanning. (Edited the other comment.)

The idea is to beat a steelman of the idea. Because that's a greater victory than beating a strawman.

[eru]

Sure. Eg you'd be hard pressed finding good arguments for 2=3 (without resorting to shenanigans around definitions).