If you were wrong, would you want to know? If the answer is no, then no point in discussing.
Views themselves should not be pre-determined or challenged. Views should be a function of premises and reasoning. If a premise changes, or better reasoning is found, your view should update accordingly. E.g:
# GOOD
reasoning_function(premise) -> view
Note: The opposite of this is confirmation bias, illustrated as:
# BAD
find_facts_to_backup_view(view) -> premise
People are generally good at critiquing opposing sides/views, but not their own views.
Signs you may have bias:
- If you find yourself constantly trying to "make one side work" in your head (see #2 about confirmation bias)
- If your reason/premise for a view is "Everyone knows" or "It just is" instead of hard fact (see #2)
- If presented with evidence against an existing view, you refuse to accept this new view as a possibility (this violates #1)
Things are generally not black and white, there are usually gradations. Avoid the hyper-partisan trap of modern politics.
- You can agree with one component of an argument, and disagree with another.
- Agreeing with one component of a side does not imply total agreement of a side.
- Separate logical arguments should be recognized as separate.
Rather than pedantically pick apart specific wording of a statement
A "weighing balance" mentality instead of "My team vs your team" helps here.
This is science and discovery, not competition.