Yes, it's like you've never had a serious discussion on any issue before. If you can't in good faith defend the opposing position in the manner in which your op

Yes, it's like you've never had a serious discussion on any issue before. If you can't in good faith defend the opposing position in the manner in which your opponents themselves view the issue then you'll never be convincing. It is the only way you won't be arguing against a straw man. You'll notice that my point is symmetric and makes reference to which side might be an orthodoxy. This doesn't mean you have to both-sides yourself; you don't have to take the "what if some races are just superior" position unless you're arguing with someone who believes that. When you explain why you think color blindness isn't the right approach you start by saying why it is good, the benefits, why it's reasonable for someone to believe it to be the right way forward and then talk about its flaws.