Truths can be arranged in such ways that the arrangement itself requires a different kind of analysis than asking whether the truths arranged are in fact true. Most philosophical positions follow a similar template; introduce some truths, explain what they mean and then make your point. It should be understood that all three of these steps require you to make decisions that make your position implicitly personal. It is not a flaw, it is an unavoidable consequence of intelligence, that you are able to arrange truths, interpret them and argue the meaning of what you've brought forward is an amazing thing. And it cannot be contested by truth alone.

Most of this should be obvious when pointed out in isolation but I feel it's necessary because it's not understood when people are being passionate about their positions.

Relevant Truths

When talking on a subject, I cannot possibly introduce every bit of information with any kind of relevance, I have to decide what is most important but no true piece of information is less true than another piece. We need to accept that it is impossible for me to include every piece of information, therefore what I choose to be relevant can have wildly different implications for my subsequent conclusions.

Besides deciding, I cannot decide if information is relevant if I am not aware of it.

Characterisations

The way truths appear to interact can have a lot to do with how characterisations add to the information we have alongside the truth. The truth is distinct from how we characterise it, yet, the truth is shaped by how we characterise it, as it merges with the characterisation. The man becomes the "angry" man or the system becomes the "unfair" system. The truth of the angriness of the man or unfairness of the system is one where people can reasonably disagree yet there is a fundamental difference between a system and an unfair system. I am not saying there is no such thing as anger or unfairness but just because you see something that way, that doesn't mean you can ignore the factors which helped you to arrive at that conclusion.

Interpretation

What it means for something to be true is separate from the actual truth itself. This should be self-explanatory but for instance, that I am a man is a fact but what it means to be a man is a matter of interpretation. We can reasonably disagree on the interpretation without disagreeing on the fact.

Emphasis

All true pieces of information are equally true but they aren't equally emphasised, whether for your point or in general. What emphasising a fact does, why it's being done and whether it should be done are all valid questions that don't challenge the truth of the piece of information being emphasised.

Narrativization

Through which truths are made relevant or important or are known, to how they're characterised or interpreted, a unique story is created. Yet what truths are made relevant or known, how they're characterised and interpreted, all of it happens differently depending on who is telling the story. We can disagree on what is fair, what is reasonable, what is lopsided and because how the story is arranged can all be reasonably disagreed upon, how it should be evaluated can be reasonably disagreed upon as well.

It is not about people making mistakes, being unreasonable, fallible, biased or whatever else. You are either aware of your involvement in how you have organised the truths, characterised them and interpreted them or you are deludedly believing that the result is also a truth and not something you have created. Even without ever disagreeing on what is true, you can arrive at a near infinite number of different conclusions by arranging the facts differently. Thus the question becomes, how do I judge a good conclusion from a bad one.

That is not something I'll discuss here but what is nonsense is to defend the arrangement by the truth of what you've arranged. It doesn't address any of the aforementioned choices you've made that have created the arrangement - none of which ever challenge what is and what is not true.