Where I stand: arguing

Free will exists. It is the foundation of human consciousness.

Character is what you make of yourself. Nature and nurture are
not all there is. So no excuses.

Authority contingent on competence. Those who can, should be
deferred to.

Respect (beyond essential human dignity) contingent on character.

People of lesser organic mental ability do not personally deserve contempt, but
their opinions do not merit equal weight.

Some forms of stupidity are not organic, but derive from a
character flaw. Treat them as they deserve, until they smarten up.

Willful stupidity is a blight upon humanity. Give no quarter.

Denial is a crime against truth. It is a rebellion against
reality itself.

Cultivated ignorance is a sort of pre-emptive denial.

Failure to draw a necessary logical conclusion is a pre-emptive denial in the realm of deduction.
"I acknowledge that if A then B, and that A, but I don't agree that B" is just plain pigheaded. (Viz Lewis Carroll's dialogue of Achilles and the Tortoise.)

If you can happily entertain nonsense, then you are too open-minded.

If you cannot entertain an idea that happens to be true, then you asre too closed-minded.

It's possible to be too open-minded and too closed-minded at the same time.
In fact, it's distressingly commonplace.

The whole point of thinking is to arrive at a conclusion.
If you're too "open-minded' to settle on a conclusion, you're a ninny.
Thinking is not supposed to be mental masturbation.

Angelfire link (turn off Javascript to avoid popups)

Freenet: /SSK@jbf~W~x49RjZfyJwplqwurpNmg0PAgM/marlowe/wis.arguing.html