In the interest of promoting harmony and civility between members of different quadras, I'm interested in discussing how each Quadra argues.
Let's start with Alpha, but I'd like other representatives of other Quadras to describe the terms upon which they argue.
For an Alpha, a debate is not exclusively about the topic we're debating, but the terms we're debating about, and upon which we're basing our assumptions. If I say religion is invalid, the discussion is not just about whether this is the case or not, but what "invalid" means.
Even once we're "certain", that "certainty" has a limit: we still always allow for our opinions to be wrong, opening up the possibility that we haven't considered something; up until the point we've built a perfectly defensible fortress of logic in our minds (Egbert and Labcoat are the best examples of this on the forum).