First and foremost: I agree with you on all counts regarding enlightened centrism.
Second: I think there's some value to increasing awareness of counter-arguments. I do not believe that good discourse inevitably drives out bad, but I do think there are practical advantages when people I agree with understand opposing arguments, and I think some percentage of people I disagree with will think twice if they know more.
(Yeah, you can figure out which are which from my comment history, but I like a good Rawlsian veil of ignorance.)
There is definitely a line between "all sides are of equal value" and "this is what the different sides are saying." It's a difficult one to draw. The stated intent of Ground News seems quite good, for example.
Second: I think there's some value to increasing awareness of counter-arguments. I do not believe that good discourse inevitably drives out bad, but I do think there are practical advantages when people I agree with understand opposing arguments, and I think some percentage of people I disagree with will think twice if they know more.
(Yeah, you can figure out which are which from my comment history, but I like a good Rawlsian veil of ignorance.)
There is definitely a line between "all sides are of equal value" and "this is what the different sides are saying." It's a difficult one to draw. The stated intent of Ground News seems quite good, for example.