I have noticed that I read opposing side documents a lot more critically and carefully than I do ones on my side.
I think this is a matter of necessity, though. The Left is far better at subtly leading someone to a point of view than the Right is. This may be because the Left vastly dominates the media and academia, and can easily mobilize the points that favor it.
For a chess analogy, think about the difference between Black playing a Modern Defense and a Ruy Lopez. The Right is playing the Modern and the Left is playing a Ruy Lopez. The latter is much more popular and much more theoretically developed than Moderns. But that's only where the analogy starts. You see, a Modern Defense forces Black to hunt for holes in White's position, and jump at them. A Ruy Lopez is more directly confrontational and combative.
Ok, if you play chess, feel free to tell me the analogy is shit. I was always terrible at the game anyways.
In any case, it gets the point across.
I recently read a feminist blogger who wrote several posts debunking conservative talking points about college sexual assault. She was quite well read, and I have to say that it made me think about the issue more critically.
Of course, she wasn't invulnerable to strawmans, non sequiturs, and selective reading. For example, she claimed that nonresponse bias did not play a role in the CSA study because the authors (Krebs et al) measured the discrepancy between responders and non-responders. Those of us who read the studies know that the authors only tested them on meaningless variables like age and race, which tell us nothing at all about differences between the groups.
Thus, my views remain unchanged.