Our media loves getting the "other side of the story." The 'other side' is what Greek philosophers referred to as dissoi logoi. We observe it every day in news debates. If you want a proper analysis of a debate then get a conservative and a liberal and we the viewer will get to see both sides of the story and judge who wins. The philosopher Hegel argued that when one gives a thesis to an argument and an opponent gives the antithesis then what comes out of the debate is a synthesis. But my question is: Does it mean that we always have to have someone play the role of the "devil's advocate"?

In debate, I feel like I and my opponent are squared off and must aim to win our side of the debate rather than find a happy medium. Suppose you are arguing whether Mr.X is a good actor in films. Let's also suppose that you like Mr.X but he's also not one of your favourites. If your opponent says "X is such a bad actor!" You'd feel that you're on a position to defend him. And if your opponent all of a sudden said, "X is by far one of the best actors" then you'd be thrust into position to explain why X is not as good an actor as your opponent thinks. The more extreme your opponent's position is, the more extreme you'll have to take a stance to pull them back. For example, if your opponent hates Mr.X he'll show how his 3 films were dreadful and you'll have to defend them. If your opponent loves X then he'll show how his 3 films were amazing and you'll have to criticize them until you feel like you've won the debate.

The problem is when an audience spontaneously shows up and sees you defending Mr.X's last 3 films they'll think you're for him and if you were attacking Mr.X's films they'll think you dislike him.

This situation becomes more apparent when you replace Mr.X with a topic people are more passionate about such as politics. If I defend a liberal standpoint, I'm seen as more liberal than my conservative friends and if I defend a conservative standpoint I'm considered more conservative than liberal friends. However, for someone to make the argument that I am more right or left wing would require them to match up my stance on all , or even most, of my beliefs on policies with someone else. But that would be very difficult and near impossible to fit in a news debate on television, which only broadcast for five minutes or so.

The same goes for politicians whose voices are heard more often and made louder by news headlines when they are against an opposing leader than when they agree with them. Thus politicians establish the extremes and allow you to chose between them.

What's the solution for having to be sometimes forced into these extreme positions? Sometimes people in such arguments try to go back to defend their original position. For example in my Mr.X scenario someone attacking him as the greatest actor might admit "Hey I actually like the guy, just don't think he's the greatest!" But sometimes that strategy doesn't help the debate as much because you're still in a situation to win the debate. How about going a step further in that strategy then? One good strategy between debaters would be to follow the Greek philosophers style of argument concerning dissoi logoi. It involves switching sides in a debate to understand the other person's argument. That way, the anger and heat of a debate would be replaced by an appreciation for another person's perspective and both parties may actually learn from the other. Mark Eppler wrote in The Wright Way that that's how the Wright brothers would debate, by switching sides of the argument partway through their debates. A few years later and they were flying before anyone else. Perhaps this was part of the reason they managed to figure out how to fly? For one thing it displays a flexibility and intelligence in the Wright brothers for being able adopt different sides of an argument. But more importantly if we consider how the Wright brothers approached learning to fly, we see that their debate style is closely related. They attempted flight by experimenting with different ideas and giving many different ones a chance. They were the first to consider warping the shape of a wing for flight. They used wind tunnel tests for 200 designs. Thus, they weren't fixed on one position, or any polar extreme and allowed arguments from both sides of the table while even switching stances. Whether the correct solution was a fixed rudder or one that swivels the Wrights tried both.

From all my debates, whether in public, among strangers in my old debating society, or with friends, the only ones where I feel like I've won are when we both can thank each other for the debate. When the there is no gentile behaviour then I know the other person actually believed in their stance and sought no Hegelian synthesis from the debate.