Which is more appropriate?

To argue for a stand which accords no privileged position to any one group over another.
To argue for humility and admit that we are working our way towards the truth.
To argue for equal and maximum rights for all individuals.
To argue for doubt which is the engine of objective inquiry processes for the betterment of us as a species.

OR

To argue for one's own right truth and in turn directly or indirectly deny other's of truth unless they follow suit.
To argue for arrogance of which one knows the proper reading of how everything is already known and has been foretold.
To argue for rights for individual which only one's own religion deems as suitable and in turn will be limited. To argue for certainty of which nothing needs to be tested and cross-checked and which will indirectly hamper reconcilation as a species?