This seems to presume that these points of view you’re talking about have no objective truth value, and that the only worthwhile exercise is constructing “convincingly-written” rhetoric to support one side or another.
I don't take that from the gp at all. My perspective is that he seems to be saying you're not going to understand a position on an issue until you internalize it "as if" it was your own belief. By internalizing one belief and then another that contradicts it, you can truly compare them on the merits and perhaps become aware of the objective reality that they both share.
