"I have actually learned to argue in a new way. Not just the legal dimension, but in a way that puts one foot squarely in the practicality of the situation. I enjoy the commitment in legal argument to (1)an authoritative rule that sets out a standard/threshold which must be met (2) a fact situation (3) a standard of proof (like "balance of probabilities" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" and (4) whether the facts that are demonstrated meet the threshold.

And that's it. Once the ground rules are set, arguments are so much more fun. And productive. Authorities are agreed upon. Standards are not absolute, so you avoid all of that "Well what you say isn't true ALL of the time" bullshit that people often revert to when they are losing an argument. And you soften the discussion by claiming things about THIS fact situation without requiring the other side to make concessions about ALL situations for all time.

What I'm saying is, "losing" such arguments are very palatable. Every argument is a balance of valid claims. There is evidence and persuasiveness on both sides, and your ultimate position is never (not often) "you are wrong" but "on the balance, my side is more right".

I think its better to approach most issues this way. This is a perspective shift for me.

...In summary: restricted arguments are better and more productive AND looking at sides of an issue as a balance of valid positions is better and more productive."

One day I will write "What Law School has done to me: The Bad." I am sure it will involve erosion of ideals, or excessive appreciation of how everything "depends" on the facts, or how I see a legal solution to everything all the time to the preclusion of more appropriate solutions like letting things go, or having a simple conversation. But that day is not today.