Updated link for the glaciers article (sorry for the error yesterday).
David Friedman published two posts he called the Political Turing Test, with this preface:
Many, perhaps most, people with opinions on some controversial issue believe that their views are based on evidence and reason in contrast to the views of those who disagree with them. One way of testing that belief is to try to argue the other side. If you cannot do it about as well as an intelligent supporter of that side you probably don’t know enough to justify your confidence in your beliefs.
In his second post, he offers his cognitive empathy for controversial topics - carbon emissions, minimum wage laws, gun control, regulation of transport, tariffs, and affirmative action.
Now I'm not convinced, and I'm not that impressed with the anti-gun-control arguments, although I do have to admit to having enjoyed long guns when I was young. And none of the arguments defend the weapons of war we face today.
But overall, this is a good exercise. Understanding your opponent is key to connecting and convincing (if and when possible). I try....