You never really understand an issue until you can argue from the opposing view.

Being able to make the best possible case for something you oppose helps you to avoid attacking strawmen and means that your own argument will be stronger for it. Do the job well enough, and you will have passed what economist Bryan Caplan calls an “ideological Turing test”.

The classical Turing test checks whether an observer can tell the difference between a computer programme and a human in a keyboard-based conversation. Passing a Turing test is one mark of a good artificial intelligence. Caplan’s ideological Turing test checks whether an observer can tell which of several debaters is arguing a position she does not believe. Which of the three debaters arguing for income redistribution is really a libertarian? Which of the people arguing for drug legalisation really supports prohibition? Passing Caplan’s test means that you understand your debating opponents very well indeed.

Next week brings the semi-finals of The New Zealand Initiative’s Next Generation Debates. Sponsored by the Friedlander Foundation, these annual debates bring together top debaters from the country’s universities to debate some of the most contentious issues of the day.

This year’s Wellington semi-final will debate legalising euthanasia, with panellists Hon Maryan Street and Dr Stephen Child; the Auckland semi-final will debate whether economic growth comes at the expense of people and the environment, with panellists Sir Roger Douglas and Sue Bradford. Wellington’s grand final will debate whether high house prices make us poorer as a nation, with Labour’s Phil Twyford and Andrew King, of the New Zealand Property Investors’ Federation, as panellists.

The Initiative puts a lot of time and effort into organising these debates. We think it is important that policy debates are not just restricted to the floor of Parliament. But we also want to encourage the mental rigour that comes with being assigned a debating position that one might not support. Being a good debater means being able to pass an ideological Turing test. If more parliamentary debaters were able to understand and recognise the best form of their opponents’ positions, rather than the easiest caricature, policy would be the better for it.

Please come out and support our debaters (and enjoy some free drinks and nibbles). Register for the Wellington semi-final here, the Auckland semi-final here, and the Wellington grand final here.