If it’s a civil and interesting discussion, why not?
Exactly. If two people are making competing compelling arguments, they’ve both earned an upvote. Using Up/Down votes as a means to siding with someone is a good way to build an echo chamber.
Up/down votes should be used more as “I think this comment has a positive/negative contribution to the conversation”.
Playing devil’s advocate, I completely disagree. If two people are making competing arguments, only the one being needlessly contrarian deserves an upvote. Using Up/Down votes as a means to side with someone is a good way to build a Boeing 747-200 engine.
When I agree with a comment, but the rebuttal is civil, well thought out, and reasonable, I’ll upvote both. I’m more likely to downvote attitudes I don’t like rather than statements.
Typically I value comments based on argumentative strength and/or whether information provided adds value to discussion.
Strong arguments will be upvoted even if I disagree with the overall conclusion. And part of what makes arguments strong is civility and open-mindedness (in my opinion).
This is actually the way you are supposed to do it.
Sometimes a point is well made even if I disagree with it, the conclusion in it or disagree with the path it suggests whilst agreeing with the objectives.
It’s like how in Politics in better times (or less adversarial countries) one might respect a political oponent whilst disagreeing with them.
There’s also a trait in some cultures were people tend to try and poke holes on other people’s ideas and point out the bits they find incorrect, not because they’re against it, in disagreement with it or to put down that other person, but to try and help improve that idea even further - in other words, genuine constructive criticism. A downvote isn’t constructive, and sometimes people deserve an upvote for trying or for how far they got, even if the end result could be better.
One can appreciate a strong argument, even if it goes against what they themselves believe.
