I think my main thesis is this: conviction is a strong word that implies the thinker has already come to his conclusion and is willing to probe no more. Opinion is not as strong of a word, and I realize the necessity of having opinions in any kind of debate. However, when one comes to a conviction to himself, even under the cloak of "faith," he can no longer probe any deeper. He will inevitably dodge tough questions, because it is human nature to do so. Intellectual dishonesty is precisely this; namely, the failure to continue searching for answers. To do this one needs to examine every viewpoint and take them all into consideration, IF one is call oneself a philosopher (= an intellectually honest person who searches for truth). To show how I apply this to myself, take this example. I am an atheist and I am very confident in this position. I will argue for it in a debate. However, in my mind I leave some space for flexibility. Therefore my ideal goal is not to prove myself right, but to try to prove myself wrong, in order to prevent myself from having any specious convictions.