Ok I’m starting to understand your point of view. I was reasoning from a general standpoint, with no specific topic in mind, whereas you’re thinking from the perspective of specific stakes. I think we can probably agree that both debates and facts can be weaponised towards a specific agenda, and that neither of those attitudes are acceptable. My gripe with « facts » people is that they tend to only look at the facts that support their agenda, and your gripe with « debate » people is that they just don’t want to listen to the other opinion.

I guess I could reformulate then and instead of « open to debate », a better choice of words could be « true to his convictions ». It’s a bit different but I think it’s a mature thing to be truthful.

Edit: note that being truthful to your convictions doesn’t mean to be obsessed by them, but rather to live them truthfully