PARADOX? Probably, yes.
Anyways, there are always people with differing opinions, but sometimes we fall in between/ see both sides. No, we don't always have to pick on either side of the fence. There. Is. NOTHING. Wrong. With. That. By the way, seeing both sides in not the same as not taking a side! It's taking a stance that both sides have a point.
However, people should really be able to be even more in between than that. What if I believe in the "Yes" side, but not entirely? There should be a 0 to 10 rating scale for each side, to be honest.
Every argument is the same. Neither side wins when both sides are passionate. This is an argument. If heated enough, this is a fight or a war. I'm not sure what we feel we've learned after it all. What I do think is that taking a side is easier. Everyone hates the guy in the middle. Your a target in the middle. If you've ever stood there, you know that already. I side with the neutral unless it's clear that one side is malicious. If not, I'm not sure it matters. I'm also not sure that either side will ever really be right.
Not all arguments interest everyone. It should be acceptable to not have an opinion or to be neutral on a topic. For instance if you don't want any kids and never get anyone pregnant. It should be okay if you don't care about abortion discussion one way or the other.
I am not advocating for a plethora of choices. The polls have that covered, but I am advocating a third option. 'Maybe', is an admission of being undecided, or not having an opinion, which is counter to the whole opinion concept. As a result, I favor two alternates.
I think MasturDbtor is on the right track with 'Mixed'. I also think that 'Sometimes' is a useful third option for many topics. Both of these can encourage more complex discussion that is not bogged down by dogmatic oversimplification. Also, they would give a column for people to read that would not invite knee-jerk agreement or disagreement prior to cessation of thought. I get tired of reading reactionary replies that only address the first sentence of an opinion, and only consider it in the context of the column (yes or no) of the post, but not qualifications and explanations, or the nuance of the ideas.
Just because it's not strictly yes or no doesn't mean your opinion is neutral. You may have very particular ways that you want it to be between yes and no and not just "meh...I don't care" so there should be a third option but it should say "Mixed" not "neutral".
That I say yes to a question supporting neutrality, but I believe that on some opinions, I have a more neutral opinion rather than clear yes or no. Considering this is a professional debating site, I've wondered why they excluded this option. Why not be able to debate your argument that neither side is clearly right or wrong?
I'm sorry, but neutral people are the worst. Last year in AP history we had many debates discussing political affairs as well as big issues in society. As someone who is normally very passionate during debates and discussions, it always annoyed me to no end when the girl next to me would speak up and suggest arguments for both sides. To clarify, she never played Devil's Advocate or defended anything she believed in; she was simply apathetic towards everything. In a class of eight people, things usually got surprisingly loud since there was regularly 3 people on each side and 2 students on the border. I feel that by taking a side, you are forcing yourself to think and to learn. Likewise, if you don't have an opinion and you can't for the life of you get interested and take a stance, you're better off not saying anything about the argument. You'll save yourself the trouble by replying to your inquirer that you're not very well educated on the topic and you don't feel differently one way or the other rather than trying to pull something out of the air and make sense of both sides to keep peace.
If there was a neutral option then everyone who was somewhat on the fence might pick it and just stay wishy washy about the topics. With yes and no buttons users have to decide one side and argue it. It is really beneficial. However there are always pros and cons to both sides of arguments no one learns anything by standing in the middle.
I honestly have no idea why they should add one. There already is that option, it's called not voting. If you honestly want people to know your neutral feelings towards a topic, just leave a comment, Adding it seems like a complete waste of time to me, but it's your opinion.
The point of the supporting argument is not only to justify your position but also to set it out and to add context to a viewpoint. This area is for me to say that I am against or for the movement and to give a balanced argument. Therefore there should not be a neutral area where the indecisive arguments go. It should be how it is now; with a yes or no answer and a justification.
When a person start thinking about a subject or a conflict he reviews information about the conflict or he may even check different opinions about it and whether it gets personal or not there will always be some kind of reason or reasons that will make us choose a side.
As we all know, when it comes to debating, it requires a topic to debate on. Usually people would think about the pros and cons beforehand. People who can list more pros, take the good side meanwhile people who can list more cons take the bad side. Neutrality is not suitable when it comes to debates because a human mind can easily be convinced. An example would be like choosing between healthy food and unhealthy food. Healthy food gives you an advantage of being healthier however, eating unhealthy food gives you pleasure and a guilty consequence. By listing such thoughts like this, you will eat healthy food. HOWEVER, it depends on the person too. Let's set a scenario. You are at McDonalds with your friends and you can't decide on salad or a burger. You are also on a diet. Choosing a salad is obviously the healthier choice but you are at a fast food restaurant. For what would you order a healthy meal when the place is full of unhealthy choices. Your friends are also there and there's a high chance you would take their food so you might end up ordering the unhealthy choice. Neutrality is not only based on how many pros an cons you can list but it is also based on the way a person thinks, how easily convinced you are and how strong your mentality is. Pros and cons are an important part of debating. If there is a neutral opinion allowed, it would not be so neutral once the person is convinced. Voting would not exist either because people THINK they are neutral but when they have to take sides, they have to rethink about what or which is better.
YES or NO vote, is like BAD or GOOD, and as you look back on History it's dividing people, Nations, and Countries.
Looking back at Would War 2, there was a Neutral Country, Switzerland, and the War was between Good Vs Evil Countries.
Good in the past was God (Christians) and Bad was The Devil (Non Christians) as in the time of the Crusades, between 1095 – 1291.
Neutral or undecided would be the voters who don't vote, by either returning blank forms or by not returning their forms.
But, you cannot always be sitting on the fence, as there are the times where your morals come into play and you have to think of the right outcome of your vote, to protect those who are too young, and innocent, to voice their opinions.
Simple this really, just don’t take a stance. Then you don’t have an opinion and are neutral. So there you go don't vote yes or don't vote no, just don’t vote.Its like the same as the Big Issues, you have the no opinion stance. Here you just don’t have the ability to put down why you have no opinion.
There is a reason why DDO has a poll section. It is for open ended opinions. If you have an open ended opinion make it a poll.
There are very few opinions that even need a neutral opinion option, and most of them can be made into polls. Polls also lack the need for a 50 word argument.