If someone is taking the position that the sky is blue, arguing against the position that the sky is orange, does that make them less trustworthy? How about ar

If someone is taking the position that the sky is blue, arguing against the position that the sky is orange, does that make them less trustworthy? How about arguing against genocide? How about arguing that torture is morally indefensible? How about arguing that war is wrong and best avoided unless absolutely necessary? How about arguing that drug prohibition is an abhorrent policy that is rooted in racism and greed? Any one of these positions makes a presenter more credible, not less. These are all accurate, true positions; there is no trust deficit inherent in pointing that out.