Yes, but in your examples, even though the argument on the surface seems to be against you, in actuality, you are making an argument that benefits you.
Just so there is no wandering from my main argument - what I am saying is that everytime we read one of these 'controversial' argument, the opinion of the article writer is almost always an opinion that directly benefits him or some group he identifies with. Rarely do we get a controversial article where the person discovers something that turns out to be totally against what he is or stands for.
That's not actually true. What happens in such a case is an author write about how he discovered something and changed.
If you discover something that is against what you stand for, almost everyone will change to match it. So you'll never see someone say: look I found this, but I won't do it.
Instead you'll see someone say: look I was a, but I found b, and now I'm b.
Just so there is no wandering from my main argument - what I am saying is that everytime we read one of these 'controversial' argument, the opinion of the article writer is almost always an opinion that directly benefits him or some group he identifies with. Rarely do we get a controversial article where the person discovers something that turns out to be totally against what he is or stands for.