A bigger challenge is that arguments on issues are often actually a proxy for some deeper cause: climate change debates ostensibly are about science, but seem m

A bigger challenge is that arguments on issues are often actually a proxy for some deeper cause: climate change debates ostensibly are about science, but seem mostly about whether we redistribute wealth or exercise control over people. Same with e.g. wearing masks. People try to craft arguments based on science, but the science is almost as irrelevant as it is obvious, the real question people are debating is perspective on how government can limit freedom. People like to hide behind "science says this" because there is usually objective science available, but science provides facts about cause and effect, not priorities, which is what leads to debate, and often blatant distortion of facts. I think a bigger challenge than presenting both sides of an argument is actually getting to the core of what is being debated.