We had a family friend (sadly no longer with us) who was a lawyer, but also had his own national radio legal (and sometimes general) phone in show. I'm sure many Brits will know who I mean as he was on in London from the seventies before going national in about 1995. Anyway, I was lucky enough to be invited there for the afternoon to see the previous programme and his, and asked him whether he thought with all the discussions of issues on the hours of general phone ins they had every day, anyone actually changed their opinion. He said 'no, it was just for entertainment', though I disagreed, as sometimes I or someone else would here a totally new point or view that made us shift our positions and realise we'd missed part of the whole picture.
To get to the point, as the forums are similar to the phone in format (particularly CI and CE where opposing views often exist), have any of you learnt or heard something that made you change your earlier solid view?

I can't remember if I have here, though when I haven't formed a view I've often picked up enough new information to form at least a basic idea.
(The rest of this post is my own opinion on this)
As an example, I am currently collecting all the data I can on global warming that doesn't follow the majority PC view, and this includes as many exact scientific readings as opinions. I have done it for my own interest, and mainly used it on phone ins and individual discussions, but since a thread appeared here, it gave me the chance to share it with a much wider audience. So, to complete the example, it may well inform people, (as do many other scientific posts that have been added there), but has it actually reversed a hardened opinion to the opposite? And to complete the circle, did this happen on any forum thread, ever?
My own belief is the majority of controversy comes from the lack of the almost impossible position of knowing enough about any issue, big or small, to know the truth. If an expert you could rely on told you 'This is the answer' then many controversial issues which are only controversial because we don't know, would be solved. This leaves preferences, which, if they harm no one for each view, have no need to be controversial as both/all can exist together. And of course, many, like moral issues are somewhere between fact and choice depending on who you speak to.
And finally (by coincidence) I am also of a legal background, and some of the questions here are raised in legal philosophy classes (and general philosophy ones, which I didn't study). It just explains why what I intended to be a simple question turned into an essay as long-forgotten discussions filtered into my post. So an additional question to this, do you agree most controversy is from not knowing the actual answer, rather than conflicting opinions?