As always, there's a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/106/ https://xkcd.com/106/ I really like this technique because it forces you to think about what assumpti

As always, there's a relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/106/ https://xkcd.com/106/ I really like this technique because it forces you to think about what assumptions the other side had to have made in order to reach their conclusion. I've often found that the other side's argument _is_ the logical choice based on their assumptions and background knowledge. From there I can examine those assumptions, and my own assumptions, and see which parts are incorrect, or id additional information would cause the argument to be less conclusive. I'll then focus my argument on those incorrect assumptions, because attacking the argument head-on often has counterproductive results. And of course, it's not uncommon to find that my own assumptions were incorrect while researching the other side's arguments and data