Those are all about fallibility, really, and encouraging criticism. The opposites: * possible holes in the argument/narrative are presented * difficult feats

Those are all about fallibility, really, and encouraging criticism. The opposites: * possible holes in the argument/narrative are presented * difficult feats like reading minds are admitted to be difficult * possibly misleading words are hedged * unimpassioned thought is encouraged * sources are given (so claims can be checked or researched) This is all compatible with being totally biased, in the point of view you actually present amid all this niceness. (Expressing fallibility is also an onerous task that will clutter up your rhetoric, but that's another matter.) Uh, but I could be wrong.