In debating, understanding the other side is far more important than understanding one's own side.

The better one understands their opponent, the better they can find flaws form the inside of the case, looking out, rather than the outside , looking in. Once they have entered the frame of mind their opponent is in, they gain a new viewpoint of their own side of the debate and see its flaws and where it seems most threatening. Thus, to truly understand the other side enables both the debater to tear that case apart thoroughly but also to see how their own can be torn apart and cover all weaknesses with strong defenses before the opponent can even think of coming up with them. I will now explain how offense and defense work. Offensive debating is the style by which one presents their points and attack the flaws of the other side, defensive debating is the style by which one protects against the offense of the opposition. Both of these styles are immensely improved in one's ability within a debate if that individual understands the other side. I shall now explain why: 1. If one doesn't understand what they are attacking, offensive debating becomes inefficient. 2. If one doesn't understand how, within the mindset of the opponent's side, their own side looks, they will fail to defend effectively and always have an uphill battle the next round. 3. If one sees the opponent's side fully, and has observed their own through the filtered eyes of the opposing side's views, they will not only identify which attacks of their side are worth putting on the offense and which are too risky and should be left out but also can see the offense of the opponent coming before they have even been presented and the defense to the opponent's offense can occur the round before the offense has even been presented. 4. Until one has fully understood the other side, they will never be able to angle their own side into a suitable format designed for attacking the other. They will be presenting a standardized version of their side whereas they stand a much better chance of winning if they tailor the wording of their arguments to both attack the other side at the same time as defending their own. Here is an example of someone who understands their own side: "Abortion is wrong because the baby's life matters and it's murder. Murder is illegal and therefore so should abortion be." Here is an example of someone who understands the other side: "While it would be true to say that he mother's will, and freedom of choice over her own body, matter very much in the case of human rights, ti is inevitably more important to say that protecting the young of the generation is objectively a superior aim of the law than protecting the generation that has had more of a chance to prove itself to the world." The fundamental difference between someone who understands their own side and someone who understands the other side is that the one who understand their own side is attacking the opponent's case from the outside-in whereas the other person is pulling the opponent's case apart from the inside-out. It is strategically more difficult to recover from the inside-out destruction than outward-in destruction and additionally it is harder to guarantee that a person has penetrated to the core of a case as it ebbs away at it as opposed to ensuring is pulled the case apart entirely when it begins at he cores and draws people out of believing in it. On a final note, understanding one's own side of the debate is actually inevitable if they understand the other side. The reason for this at by understanding the other side, they merely have to backtrack all the thinking of the other side to formulate a combined offensive and defensive strategy to their arguments as opposed to going offensive to a side they have not real clue about and then defending in reaction as oppose dot proactive defense that occurs the round before the offense of the opposition has even been presented. In conclusion, it is strategically and stylistically better for a debater to put their entire effort into understanding the opponent's case rather than their own.