Questioning our assumptions and commonly held beliefs (even facts!) should be encouraged as an integral part of intellectual discourse.

I'm saddened by the current state of affairs where increasingly polarized factions feel that taking nuanced (rather than absolutist) positions threatens their positions and gives up ground to the opposition.

Questioning established beliefs and fact should absolutely be encouraged. But that questioning must be grounded in a good-faith, logical, reasonable belief that contrary evidence exists. When mountains of evidence are provided that support existing facts, and you are unable to come up with any persuasive evidence or avenues of research to contradict those facts, you are an idiot and have no place influencing or making public policy.

And what about the cases where there isn't a mountain of evidence supporting one side or the other?

At least from my observation, the general stance of most people is 100% complete belief in any partisan theory, and complete rejection of any opposing ideas, regardless of the amount of evidence supporting each.

Well, duh, then there's more room for doubt.

Look, we're talking about the difference between opinion and fact here. By its very nature, "fact" implies that you have enough evidence already that questioning that fact requires evidence of its own. If I hold some weaker opinion, then sure, it's entirely reasonable to hold an opinion contrary to that without the burden of proof immediately being on you.

You can look at any situation and pick and choose what facts you want to care about, and that process can be extremely biased and misguiding, even though all the facts will be correct. It's not so cut and dry as facts vs. fiction. If things were that simple the problem would be easily solved.

It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction, but I think 2016 proved it's not easily solved.

Trump constantly spouted blatant fiction. He still does. This isn't one set of facts vs another.

Trump lies, then vilifies those who call out his lies, and somehow he's the hero.

> It is so cut and dry as facts vs fiction

No, it isn't. With complete sincerity I think you should make a serious effort to appreciate this possibility.

>and somehow he's the hero.

This happens because it's not as simple as facts vs. fiction. Yes, he does get some facts wrong. But the media does pick what facts to report on to always paint him in a bad light. This is why I said it's not so simple.