But what if one side is actually correct and the other side is provably wrong?
Sure Hightor. In any discussion (including political discussions) there are provable facts. I have to accept the fact that even I am confident that I know a provable fact, there is a possibility I have gotten something wrong. There is a question I ask myself (even in scientific discussions where I know the right answer); What evidence or logic could the other side present that would change my mind about something that I am sure is factually true?
In an intelligent discussion, you start with provable facts
... the rational way to come to a conclusion is to gather all of the evidence (studies, testimony, reasoning) together and then consider all of it as you make your conclusion on the facts. Unfortunately so often in politics people start with the conclusion they want and then gather up the evidence that supports it.
There is is more than that to a political discussion. Opinions aren't facts
. This thread was inspired by the Ideological Echo Chamber set up in the Google Memo thread.... people are saying "Google was right to fire the engineer". This is a belief about morality, there are facts behind it, but at the end of the day there is a subjective judgement and there is an argument to be made on either side.
In political discussions, usually this is the case. Even if both sides of an issue agree on all the facts, they will still come up with opposite opinions on the issue. Sadly, that doesn't even happen since in an ideological echo chamber opinions change how the facts are understood.