Digging your heels in often leads to foot injuries

One of the most insightful points made by the the Common Topics and the Commonplaces chapter in ARCS was made in the final two sentences of the Common Topic of Greater/Lesser (Degree) section. "...Rhetors who use the topics vigorously and thoroughly," the chapter reads, "must be prepared to turn up arguments that they do not like. Warning: thorough examination of an issue has been known to cause rhetors to change their minds" (126). As has come up in class discussion previously, I feel strongly that this is something most individuals tend to ignore when either making an argument, listening to one being made to them, or simply holding any opinion or belief structure.

To have this point clearly illustrated, one need only watch any political debate or pseudo-debate talk show. The individuals speaking are either politicians or pundits who are making an argument, whether it be on a common topic or a special one. These rhetors (what they unfortunately must be referred to as, given their job descriptions) will make their point but refuse to address those made by their opposition. They will instead simply refer back to their original argument/point and thus the argument will come to an issue regarding stasis.
The obvious problem is the lack of true discourse between the involved parties. When observed closer, there isn't even engagement taking place. There are basic surface facts used by each side to illustrate their viewpoints, but even the facts used will not be up for discussion.
My favorite example of a debate show (and one I used to watch on a daily basis) is the ESPN sportswriter show Around the Horn. In this program, sports journalists from four different regions (often the northeast, midwest, west, and south) would all weigh in on a given topic via satellite. They could (and would, unlike in political debate) engae each other directly in this way and all would have statistics and analysis to back up their viewpoints. In the six years I was a religious viewer of the program, however, not once did I witness one of the panel member's minds change based on an argument made by one of his co-panelists. These are all men and women discussing the exact same topic with numerous statistical means of measurement at their disposal and still their minds are dead set. It didn't stop there though. Not only did none of them ever have their opinion swayed publicly, but they rarely ever, if it happened at all, admitted that they even could possibly be wrong in their take on the matter.
It comes back once again to the view that being steadfast in an opinion shows conviction, strength of will and dependability. Discoursal rhetoric can only advance so far without both parties being willing to have their opinions altered. Truly what is the point of arguing with someone who cannot be swayed, no matter whether they are proven to be correct or incorrect? This is not an attitude that should be embraced by society. This steadfast stance on opinions cannot allow us to even have a productive discussion on a given matter, let alone figure out possible solutions or middle-grounds.
The quote in question states that rhetors MUST be able to turn up arguments that go against their argument/opinion/belief structure. If they are not able to incorporate such things, what sort of users of rhetoric are they?
I have had my opinion changed many times on many matters. Hell, even my own religious stance (Agnostic) is one that acknowledges the inability to take a strong stance. Agnosticism is essentially a theological shrug. I don't know the answers to these questions, and none of us can anyway, so what's the use in holding rigid patterns of thought in regards to them? These are beliefs people are willing to die and kill for...and yet, they can only believe they are correct. There (at present) is no way to prove or disprove any particular religion. So why believe I'm right and everyone else is wrong? That'd be downright arrogant of me.
And that's the problem: human arrogance. Everyone believes that they way they think is undoubtedly correct. Even I've been guilty of this at one time or another. But I strive to be better and more accepting of my own mental fallibility. This is a trait that, sadly, I do not see represented enough in contemporary society. I never want to stop learning, even if it changes what I think, feel or believe. Can this attitude ever become more prevalent in the 21st century?
Given the divisive nature of both individuals and groups/parties, especially in modern-day America, I have a difficult time holding out hope for this level of arrogance to dissipate.