> "you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with" I particularly like a version of this termed th

> "you need to be able to state the other side's argument in a way that the other side would not disagree with" I particularly like a version of this termed the "Ideological Turing Test". The idea is to anonymously write both your position and an opposing position, and to see if an audience consisting of people from both sides (and, potentially, those who are neutral or are on some other side) can identify which side you actually support. If you can state both arguments convincingly enough that it's difficult to determine which one you really believe, then (according to adherents of this concept) you've earned the right to be critical. If, on the other hand, one side easily identifies you as an outsider, then you require further listening/study before you'll be capable of criticizing that side on a reasonable level. While I think the process is more cumbersome than necessary, I agree with the underlying concept -- if you can't state someone else's argument in a way that they think is fair, then you either don't understand it well enough, or you understand but you're being intentionally disrespectful by choosing unfair characterizations.