"I am still learning." - Michelangelo

When we talk about political issues, we tend to pick up the perspectives we see around ourselves. We start to form political ingroups and outgroups, become emotionally rooted, and start to use circular reasoning. We start from what we want to believe, and find facts to support it, rather than taking a step back, looking in an original way, and coming to a rational conclusion based on everything.

Political debate tends towards becoming part of the process of proving things in a dialectic, not the process of finding new things and searching for a better solution.

The answers to questions are much more clear when people start facts and find conclusions rather than start with conclusions and find facts. And when we find new facts, we should adapt our perspective to make more sense when they are included, that way, it will be more likely to be correct.

The conflict that is created from political debates, effects everyone's perspective, even those without an opinion. Debate often tends to work in a way where ideas can appear more credible than they actually are.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning:

"Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion."

The more indifferent people are in politics, the better solutions people come up with. It would be better if we were less politically rooted. Once someone makes a point, or connection, it doesn't have to be repeated again and again, never to be fully recognized by the opposing side. The government and politics should be a process of searching, rather than proving.

When the subjects of debate become more isolatable and falsifiable, people are able to make incredible calculations, and accomplish great things.

If we debated in a way that encourages people to ask falsifiable questions, being able to isolate exactly what success is, this would work much better than dialectical debate.

From https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html:

If for example you have categorized yourself as a student, the chances are you will adopt the identity of a student and begin to act in the ways you believe students act (and conform to the norms of the group). ... The final stage is social comparison. Once we have categorized ourselves as part of a group and have identified with that group we then tend to compare that group with other groups.

One person may point to something good feminism does and call it good.

Someone else may point to something bad feminism does and call it bad.

While they might say, "I agree with X part of the basis of feminism, but...".

They are not going to change the way they interpret things and speak based on that one aspect they agree with.

Because "Feminism" is a very a complex sets of ideas and events, rather than a single observable fact.

When you completely oppose someone based on a few, probably valid, defects you see in their argument, you are only creating an source for opposition from them, where they will find a few, probably valid, defects they see in your argument.

When we recognize a problem in something, our first reaction is to oppose to the source of the problem as a whole. It creates a balancing act of opposition, brings people to find more problems, while creating dispute.

But it's very much possible to make radical changes without creating opposition in the first place.

There is a difference between neutrality, a willingness to change and adapt your stance when needed, and a position of passivity.

Say, for example, someone believes "vaccines work", and wants to change someone else's mind. Ironically, the way that is most likely to succeed would be to adapt to and understand it from their perspective. By directly opposing them, it will only strengthen their position. Have a discussion on ways vaccines could be potentially misused for example, they should find arguments they both agree with, even if the one doesn't necessarily see much of an importance to it. But then bring up points supporting this argument that exists on the basis that vaccines do work, at least for their intended purpose. This information will be taken as supporting evidence, even if it contradict something they previously said. They may not have changed their values much, but they succeeded in convincing them of something.

Everyone wants to gradually adapt and improve their perspective. No one wants to completely alter their perspective, call it flawed, and accept a contradicting view.

Our first reaction is always to get people to revert their perspective, all at once, but it never works. The best way to make changes is to recognize that people hold different values. Instead of opposing them, and never succeed in changing their mind, we should work around this to implement the things we want to achieve.

And in the process, we might learn a few things, changed a bit of our own perspectives, and realized some parts of others values are similar to our own.

There is no point in disagreeing on complex and relative things, because that is a defect of the question in it's self, not a paradox of what can be done.