I think that's why many people have adopted, to various degrees, the idea that "for each argument there is an equal and opposite argument," and why so many people can seemingly hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously, without any sign of mental discomfort.
This is one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern conception of objective journalism. Like public schooling, the content is worthless, but the methodology is even worse.
In debate, you are taught how to argue any side. But that just made me appreciate the art of examining all the facts to reach sound conclusions, it didn’t make me think there were really two sides to an issue.
But it DID give me a great disdain for those who argue there are “two sides to every issue”, because in fact there are a LOT more than two sides. It’s why I think the CONCEPT of the “fairness doctrine” is faulty, because it envisions a world where there is an “opposing view”, when in fact there are many different opposing views.
For example, Rush Limbaugh is not presenting MY side of the issue, he is giving HIS. If someone argued they needed equal time with him, I would request my own equal time.