Usually my conclusion is more like:

1) There is no such thing as "both sides." There are always more than two sides.

2) They should all die in a fire.

Not sure that helps anyone, but I call 'em as I see 'em.

It involves grokking the arguments from both sides and if it’s anything non-trivial it will take hours to actually give it due diligence. “Taking a side” without being some political hot-head dipshit is a massive waste of time.

You don't necessarily need to be right, either, but the point is to take a stand so that there's something substantial to discuss. Put another way -- allow yourself the opportunity of being wrong. The assumption is that good faith dialectic follows, though of course that is an assumption made only on good faith.

Nope, that’s still a massive waste of time. There is an endless pool of deep nuanced disputes in a world with billions of people.

Look at just the US elections coming. There are probably 10,000+ seats of significant municipal, state, or national power up for turnover in two weeks. You cannot form a meaningful opinion on even 1% of those and it will be out of date almost immediately.