Are there really polar differences between positions?

peace,

I would like to share a light reflection that occurred to me recently and hear your opinion:
Are there really polar differences between positions?
Recently, I have repeatedly observed that in many disputes, both sides strongly assert a particular position, and in the heat of the debate, both sides appear to have entrenched positions, but in reality, every reasonable person accepts both sides of the argument, and in any case, the dispute does not really exist. At the very least, the disputes are about dosages and concrete application in certain gray situations.
Here are two examples that came to mind right now:
A. I recently read a ‘dispute’ between Descartes and Levinas, in which while the former claimed that books only confuse and cause difficulties and therefore “I completely abandoned book study, and then decided not to seek any more science except what I could find either in myself or in the great book of the world,” Levinas saw books as “one of the modes of human existence, as essential to the human soul and its education.”
on. Another controversy exists over the meaning of ‘interpretation’. Can we really know what the author was thinking? Extreme positions claim that we cannot. I have no idea and we have no access to the depths of the author’s mind. And other positions claim that certainly interpretation is possible, and that it is done every day.
I would like to argue that in most of these debates the truth lies somewhere in the middle. When I read such debates, I always think about the arguments of the parties and who I agree with. And in the vast majority of cases it turns out that both sides are making sensible points, and the question is where to cross the line. It is true that one should be careful not to be a ‘book-carrying donkey’ and think critically about the content. And at the same time, it is clear that a person who does not read does not broaden his horizons and does not sharpen his skills.
In a more sharp and extreme way, I will say that in my opinion, almost every essay by a philosopher I have read, his conclusions are extreme and wrong. Whether it is Popper or Hume and others, they usually emphasize a certain aspect and sharpen it, but in the end there are other positions that do not say nonsense, and one has to weigh the sides and set the limit somewhere. So that the complete application of concepts A or B almost always leads to extremism.
In this context, I thought this was the meaning of the judgment: “You are speaking in an extreme way!” This judgment has a negative connotation, and apparently why? The fact that I am not slamming the concept as “nonsense and full of nonsense” shows that the same method is fundamentally logical, so what’s wrong with taking logic to the end? That is, what is wrong beyond nonsense (or how can a real matter be problematic)? And in my opinion, this is exactly the point. The speaker is not saying nonsense, but rather taking a real matter and completely exaggerating it, to the point where he does not see that there are additional colors [and like Abraham, who was a realization of the Sefirat Hased, and that is beautiful, the problem is that there are additional Sefirats. In other words: he was an extreme, and not that there was anything false].
In a different style, I thought in this context about ‘dilemma arguments.’ People think – like your well-known example – that there is no reason to give tests because they are unnecessary (or that the student is diligent and does not need them, or that he is so disturbed that tests will not be useful). But there really is another model. Those for whom the tests will benefit. And so on, in the examples of the disputes above, it seems that there are supposedly only two positions – extreme ones of course – either one should read books, or one should not. And the truth – not surprisingly – is that there is a third model: it is important to read, and it is important to read with any intelligence and with a critical mind. It seems as if people are not aware of the third option, and when they are aware of it, many arguments simply fade away.
I will conclude by saying that in questions of fact, the option does not exist. Either there is a God, or there is not. There is no third. But as mentioned in debates about values, and even about the implementation of democracy or about the educational and economic system, the impression I get is that most debates do not really exist as they seem. In other words, the extreme positions only serve as signposts and compasses, that we all agree that the truth is in the middle with doses here and there (and that is something that should really be debated). Whereas the philosophers serve as models for those extreme positions, and therefore they are actually almost wrong by definition.
So far, just a few thoughts. I’d love to hear your impressions.