06/29/2026
Most disagreements I see on the internet are not because people have different moral standards. They’re because they’re working from different information. The left and the right often consume completely different versions of reality
So I propose a different way of debating
Instead of arguing over the conclusion, test the assumption. For example: ask an open borders supporter, “If migrant crime statistics were this high, would you support tighter borders?” And ask a closed borders supporter, “If the statistics were actually this low, would you support more open borders?”
You don’t even have to agree that the statistics are true. You only have to answer the hypothetical
If you’d both reach the same conclusion under the other person’s assumptions, then your disagreement isn’t about values. It’s about what each of you believes to be true. At that point, stop arguing over the conclusion. Either discuss the evidence, or shake hands and move on