On the one hand I like the idea of going into a debate with the knowledge that the other side’s well-reasoned arguments could change your opinion, and the willingness to accept that without any unreasonable fight.

On the other hand… I am not sure what to think of the post that’s going around, about that guy who claims his strategy for internet arguments is (I’m paraphrasing as well as I can remember) “to go right in, state his current, totally horseshit opinion, listen to the counterarguments, and then adjust his beliefs accordingly.”

Because

1. if you go into an argument loudly proclaiming an opinion that you think is probably total horseshit, then that is not your opinion. Your opinion, by definition, is an opinion you believe to be right. You are loudly proclaiming an opinion you believe to be wrong, and… that is just the definition of trolling.
2. But. If the issue being debated is new to you, and you are not yet sure what your opinion is on it, and the statement you’re making is just as far as your own powers of reasoning have been able to get you, but it still doesn’t feel right to you… and you feel like you need to hear more knowledgeable people’s arguments to figure out what’s wrong with it, and what your own opinion really should be… Then? the most honest way of saying what you believe is just to say all of that.
3. However. If you do say that your own reasoning has brought you to this bad-sounding conclusion, and that you are looking for guidance on what is wrong with it and how to formulate a better one? …Then, you will probably be clocked as “sea-lioning,” or “playing devil’s advocate,” or some other variant of asking bad-faith questions about “why you should change your mind” about a bad opinion that you actually DO consider the right one, and that you’re NOT actually willing to change.
4. So… I dunno. Maybe that guy does have the right approach.