There is another perspective to this, which is to appreciate when others have put forth a well-considered argument, and to sometimes relish in the challenge of anticipating the rebuttals and shoring up leaks in your reasoning. Often I will write something out that is somewhat critical, and then I&#x27;ll think about where people might attack it, and it ends up with a more measured position. I love David Foster Wallace because he was the king of considering all facets of an argument or idea so thoroughly that you can&#x27;t tell which side he&#x27;s on (and neither could he).<p>I would say that the people with the problem that this article describes are the good ones, and they are outnumbered and drowned out in our society by &quot;loudmouths&quot; who don&#x27;t obsessively consider their statements and who do present their own thoughts and beliefs as factual and&#x2F;or morally correct, so I would say please do keep qualifying everything and even promoting that type of &quot;defensive&quot; thinking. (The caveat is: don&#x27;t cater to trolls and the willfully uncharitable, and you have to decide for yourself whether someone is trolling or genuinely trying to make an argument worth responding to [or both], it&#x27;s tough these days!)<p>I often think about qualifications like &quot;I believe that...&quot;, &quot;It is my opinion that...&quot;, &quot;I think that...&quot;. Some people argue that they&#x27;re not necessary, it&#x27;s implied and obvious, it makes you seem weak, etc., but I disagree. I see so many conflicts created by people communicating their beliefs as facts, and it&#x27;s not at all obvious that they acknowledge the viability of other opinions.