I just found this video about open-mindedness, evidence based argument and common mistakes made when "moving between" thoughts in a discussion:

I like its succinct presentation of what I was up to when I read for my philosophy degree: arguing a position and revising in the light of evidence.

I get a real buzz from this sort of thing, whether it be in a debate, writing an essay or when reading well written philosophy. I try to engage with an argument by poking holes in it – and I love how good authors / debaters will poke back.

Unfortunately, there is an abundance of spaghetti philosophy: like spaghetti code in software engineering it is badly presented, too complex, opaque and not quite fit for purpose.

This video is a great example of what good philosophy should be: well presented, no more complex than it needs to be, inviting scrutiny and encouraging the audience to engage and to think.