For example, on the subject of economics, I think Owen Jones has a lot of bad ideas, and is simply wrong, but I don't think he's morally repugnant. He's just ill-informed (and very biased). One could argue that it's unethical to remain that confused when he has plenty of opportunity to apply better reasoning and correct his mistakes, but that's a hard judgement to make. Perhaps Owen Jones is doing the best he can with the set of life experiences he's undergone so far - I'm not sure, having never met him.
On the subject of theology, I think Richard Dawkins has a lot of bad ideas, and is simply wrong, but I don't think he's morally repugnant either, just ill-informed (and very biased).
On the subject of climate change, I think Greta Thunberg has a lot of bad ideas, and hasn't got a proper perspective on the subject, but again, I don't think she's morally repugnant, just ill-informed (and very biased).
Consequently, with the above individuals, I am challenging them in a battle of ideas, where I just think they haven't thought things through well enough - I do not believe that I'm on the side that represents good and they are on the side who represents evil. But that might not be true in all possible scenarios. Owen Jones might think of capitalism an unjust and morally questionable force in the world, and believe that in the battle of ideas between socialism and capitalism, he is partaking in a battle of right vs. wrong (or good vs. evil). A young earth creationist like Ken Ham might think of Richard Dawkins as a leading spokesperson in enemy territory, and consider fundamentalist Christianity vs. fundamentalist atheism to also be a battle of good vs. evil. And if Greta Thunberg thinks climate change means doom for future generations, she also probably sees the battle of ideas in terms of good vs. evil too.
Here is where it's essential to recognise these conflicts as being mostly battles of ideas, not matters of good and evil. Firstly, in the large set of all beliefs held, Owen Jones, Richard Dawkins, Greta Thunberg and I agree on most things - the places where we disagree make up only a tiny fraction of the whole set of beliefs we hold. Secondly, in our own way, we all want to get to the truth of these matters, and we largely agree on the desired final outcomes - it's the 'how we get there' part we disagree on. Owen Jones and I both agree that lifting people out of extreme poverty is a good thing, even though we champion different economic processes as a means of achieving that aim. When it comes to Richard Dawkins' atheism, I too am an atheist regarding the caricatured, strawman god (with a small g) in which Richard Dawkins claims not to believe. And in terms of climate action, Greta and I would agree that if climate change is going to wipe out hundreds of millions of people in the next few decades, then we probably need to act urgently. I just don't agree with her assessment of the facts.
If Owen Jones could see the free market the way I see it, I doubt he'd be so resistant to its outcomes. If Richard Dawkins understood the God I believe in, he would see his atheism differently. If Ken Ham understood biological evolution as well as Richard Dawkins, he probably wouldn't be a young earth creationist. If Greta Thunberg had more knowledge and confidence, she perhaps would not see me as an enemy on the subject of climate change.
It's difficult to know whether your opponent is an enemy or a friend until you have both mastered the ideas that are being put forward from each side. In a recent debate about my blog posts on gender (see here and here), a challenger of mine thought I was morally wrong to suggest the word 'gender' serves no real utility. I saw my blogs as pushing the conversation forward into better territory, and bringing about more clarity on a matter that has become so muddied in recent years. It emerged that a strong influencer in her resistance was having a family member who believes they are transgender. But having a family member who believes they are transgender does nothing to address the definitional problems put forward in my blog posts - which means that, even if my challenger sees this in terms of friends and enemies, she hasn't scrutinised the ideas strongly enough to know whether I'm her enemy or not. Similarly, a socialist who genuinely cares about helping the poor out of poverty usually thinks of the capitalist as their enemy - when, the reality is, if they knew as much as the capitalist, they'd probably find them more of an ally than most of their fellow socialists.
In conclusion, my advice would be along the following three lines. One, if you're thinking too much in terms of good vs. evil or them vs. us, you're probably not paying enough regard for the ideas being debated. Two, if you're not paying enough regard to the ideas being debated, you're probably not well positioned to know if the person challenging you is your opponent or your ally on this matter. And Three, the first two points ought to be considered alongside the notion that if one of the participants in the debate could see the situation as clearly as the other one, and vice-versa, with some kind of hypothetically ideal perspective, then it would be clear to both that that would have been a useful aspiration to have endeavoured from the start.
