 You know, it's arguing against your own position, which I usually have students do. No matter what the homework is or what the essay question may be, I almost always have students argue the other side. And it's easy to do that in law because in legal opinions you have what's called the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion. And so I usually have students, regardless of what your position is, your own position is for the majority always, I mean, they need to write a dissent. You know, not surprisingly, their dissent is usually very, very, very weak. But it's an exercise. And, you know, the more that we do something, no matter what it is, no matter how difficult we find it, the more we do it, the better we get, the easier it becomes. And it may never become easy to do that. But what I'm trying to teach students a big thing is, first, to ask questions. But then secondly, which is very difficult, is to ask ourselves the tough questions that we would ask other people, right? It's easy to try to criticize another view that we disagree with. It's much more difficult to question our own views. But I think that's what we usually mean by critical thinking. It's asking the stupid questions that people take for granted. It's asking why would I think that when everyone else agrees, right? Maybe it's because everyone else agrees. And I think most people would agree. That's not a very good reason for thinking something just because everyone else agrees, right? Well, the majority holds this, you know, because there's a consensus, whatever that may mean. Forcing students to ask themselves the questions and try to argue against their position, it is an exercise. And it is part of what it means to be educated, to ask ourselves tough questions. You know, this is why it's so important for students to raise arguments that they themselves don't think, right? Because I try to give more time to the less obvious argument so that they can see why some people would believe that. And again, I'm trying to encourage people to say things that they don't necessarily agree with. I've told many students this, that nothing warms my heart more than when a student articulates an argument that they disagree with. Because it is very difficult. But it shows that they're trying, that they're thinking in another perspective. Again, it's part of cultivating critical thinking and learning to question. And when we can question ourselves, I think that is so difficult. But that's what it means to create, think critically. So I use what I think it's called dialectical pedagogy. That's it, which is basically you posit different points of view, right? And you make them clash. You know, in many of my classes, I say, here's one view of this question. Here's another view or another answer to this question. And the two are not reconcilable. They're competing views, they're opposing views. And I try to teach students to articulate those views as best they can. And of course, students will tend to go for one view or the other, right? Personally, they'll say one view or the other. And then I ask them, and usually in the homework or the exams, I'll ask them, choose that view and defend it. And of course, they're learning how to make these arguments. But occasionally, students will see that it's very hard to defend one or the other. And they don't realize that really what I'm trying to get them to see is that it is hard to defend one or the other, right? They can argue for one, but then they know what the problems are with it. And so they're struggling with trying to counter-argue those weaknesses, which is great. But in the end, they realize, wow, it's really hard to just stick with one position. And so when they say, you know, recently, last week, we were talking about proposals to change the court, the US Supreme Court. We looked at several of them. And they said, you know, they said, you know, coming into this, I thought we should change the court. You know, yes, we need to impose terminements on the justices or change the nomination and confirmation process in certain ways. And they said, but when we talk about the problems that arise, and, well, if we were to do this, then there's other issue, questions that we have to answer. They say it's not so obvious, because as one student said, yes, there are problems with the court. But we also aren't aware of the problems that would arise if we try to correct those problems, you know. And sometimes it's a matter of, well, which problems do you want to deal with, the problems that you know or the problems that you don't know, okay? And which is worse? We don't know. You know, people tend to assume that, oh, yeah, new problems will arise, but it's okay, we'll deal with those too. Oh, really? Okay. How do you know they can be dealt with? It's the problem of the unknown unknowns, right? There's always the unknown unknown. Yeah, when they say, I'm not sure what the answer is, I guess in my mind that is precisely where I want them to be. You know, it scares me when people say, oh, I know the answer. I know it's this. This is what we have to do. Those kind of people scare me, but again, those are the people who build civilizations, who are the CEOs of corporations, you know. They're the ones who tell others, this is what we should do, and we need those people. You don't build civilizations by questioning everything. I like to think that people who ask questions are also needed somewhere, somewhere fit in the puzzle.