It's again and again disturbing to observe the expectations about one's track record of being correct (or not).
Many people actually expect that you need to be correct every time - or else (they disregard your opinion in the future).
There are businesses where being correct in 55% of your decisions turns you into a millionaire real quick. World-famous experts often have a track record of being correct in about 75% of their discussions (ignoring those discussions where the truth is still unknown).
A 100% correctness expectation is unrealistic for everyone. I would be extremely surprised if I was correct with more than 70% of my blog posts (excluding those without a statement that could be checked for correctness).
- - - - -
There are basically two kinds of discussions to me:
(A) A discussion is about a topic in which the correct stance can be proven beyond doubt.
(These are usually about technical or historical facts.)
I may choose a position and argue in its favour, hoping that the better arguments will win.
I do at times even provide partial evidence that supports the other side, for completeness' sake.
(B) A discussion about a topic which is rather about a consideration.
("We should emphasize mobility more! - No!")
I may choose a position and argue in its favour, expecting that all observers and participants gain additional info and points of view for their consideration.
My blog posts should always be seen in the context of other, often rather mainstream sources.
On the other hand, I've got little understanding for those who disagree on a topic and then turn this disagreement into a general rejection of positions from other topics (or even into ad hominem attacks).