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

I beg to differ. Wanting the debate to end up with a « correct answer » is imho a narrow view of what could be the point of debate. Same with the question of wether the debate is worth having, you can’t say that « topic A » is not worth debating in an absolute sense. It may not be of interest to you, but could be of interest to someone else. Because essentially, what you’re saying is that philosophy shouldn’t exist.

I would say « open to debate » would probably be the right way to put it for me

I think no obsession is ever a good thing, because it views whatever is not the subject of its obsession as a flaw, which is the base of entitlement. Even obsession with balance is a terrible obsession.

Imho the « obsessed with facts one » is in a wrong place. Because people obsessed with facts tend to see them as indisputable evidence that back their opinion. True wisdom sees the big picture whereas facts are just focused on a narrow reality.