There are cases where people are intractable in their beliefs, and both may be right. Abortion in the US is a good example. Regardless of what I personally believe, I will not write off half the people I meet as moral idiots or say that they don't have a valid point. I think both sides are right and wrong, and I don't have the indecency to believe I should be an arbiter of every case. And I could argue either side. That's important when you go from your general principles to being forced to deal with the individual cases. The most astonishing thing about the law is what it shows you about the individual nature of most incidents. No two things are alike.

If you are in a courtroom, say, serving on a jury, you will be presented with carefully crafted discussion and debate which will make you think the best and worst of both sides. The lawyers presenting those cases could switch at any moment and present to you the opposite side's case. Does the opposite side not deserve representation? How many false convictions resulted in the death penalty because a lawyer failed to argue their client's case well enough? How many pagans were burned at the stake, or Christians crucified and fed to lions, because people were taught that argumentation was to decide which position to pick? Discussion is to open your eyes, not close your mind.