We can start from a common set of objective facts, but because we all have our own values, we can get to a broad range of different conclusions from them.

A good opinion writer is not, as you assert, lying and tricking people. A good opinion writer is developing from our shared factual foundation through one possible set of values - and hopefully "showing their work" so we know what those assumptions are.

Thus, as DBM says, we can learn alot even from someone who reaches a conclusion different from the one driven by our own personal values. At the very least, we should learn that those we disagree with aren't evil monsters, but maybe trying to get to a vision similar to our own but in different ways.

I don't even want to read the opinion pieces that you seem to hold up as exemplary. I'm tired of the hatefulness and spite. It really is possible to communicate an opinion that's based entirely on agreed facts, to come to a different conclusion than someone else, and to do so without lying and tricking. That is what we should be striving for.

And I maintain that, e.g., Scott Alexander at SlateStarCodex.com is a sterling example of this. If you disagree, I'd love to hear why.