HOW HARD ARE 'HARDLINES'?

...At my last All Nigerian Universities Debating Championship,my team had to take very unconventional stands.We had to defend internet sovereignty which essentially made us defend anti-globalism,call out western liberal bias and defend totalitarianism.We also had to defend smuggling of people and illegal migration emphasizing moral arbitrariness of state border/citizenship control interests,lottery of resources and obligations to atone for the institutional havocs of plunder,(neo)colonialism and slavery.The positional torture continued all through the tournament as we defended inherently inimical positions like trading carbon credits,erasing Biafran War memories(a very brutal paternalistic policy),defend marxism and at the final,supported Russia's hyper-nationalistic,ultra-imperialistic international policies and bullying tactics.I learned a lot.
There's a huge ideological benefit in assessing and interrogating issues neutrally and across the spectrum of positions.The rationality of positions and actions,when left to the free process of discourse and examination,can be more fairly assessed than from a blinded,monochromatic perspective due to the toxic levels of subjectivity and imperviousness to change...
Dale Carnagie and PTee first taught me that neutrality ab initio and very extensive,non-judgemental examination of ideas,actions and behaviours(and patterns)  is crucial to understanding human intentions and disambiguating the moral positions of actions.Always giving people the benefit of the doubt is not a position of vulnerability or wobbly value systems(Mich may disagree ) but a desirable imperative in the quest for fairness and apportioning justice.Wrong conclusions(verdicts and accompanying actions) ,which are products of asymmetrical assessments of issues and/or hasty investigations,extend culpability to you and places you on the same moral pedestal as the oppressor...This should really stop.