Honestly, that's a bad idea... You won't really be informed that way, you'll just be misinformed by the opposing rhetoric on each side, neither of which may have any actual truth to it.
FWIW, I used to write for the largest Democratic outlet on the internet years ago... The place is a cesspool.. I got kicked off the front page for not touting the party line and I fucking WORKED for the party... LOL!
Really depends on how you use the information you're looking at.
r/politics is just as much shit posting as /theDonald.
You can recognize the rhetoric and use that as starting points and research further. Sometimes the opposing viewpoint is in the thread. Sometimes the shit post is actually not just shit.
If I come up with a question that would generally be considered pro Trump or anti trump, I'll cross reference the opposing forum to see if it's answered.. because the opposing side will have both shit posts (to take with a grain of salt) and, less commonly but still, an actual rebuttal.
you can aid researc
h by sorting comments via best and controversial, and looking at bot top and bottom results.
And you go back on forth between the two and create your own argument between the two sides, after getting rid of the noise (that is the majority of the posts).
Reddit/political discussion is more middle of the road and provides less, but more credible information and less radical opinions.
Last night for example I looked at debates on youtube that pro socialists got their asses handed to them.. then I did a reverse search and found socialist based people owning pro capitalist stances.
All that stuff is just a tool. You can separate stuff like the skill level of the debaters etc and see the actual arguments for both sides, and end with a more informed opinion. Find the argument you most agree with and then try to find the best rebuttal on the opposing side, rinse, repeat
End result, the opposing view keeps me more centered and more informed, if using the information properly.
