I think we need to argue for pretty much everything to be honest. Rejecting the law of excluded middle (A or not-A) leads to a whole class of logics called intuitionistic logics. Rejecting the law of noncontradiction leads to a class of logics called paraconsistent logic. Rejecting the law of identity is more rare, but apparently it leads to a type of logic called Schrodinger logic.
Even trying to argue against the most basic propositions like “Something exists” can be an interesting rhetorical exercise, as Gorgias showed.
We should in theory be prepared to argue everything, in my view, and let the strengths and weaknesses of each side of the question be apparent.
In saying that, some positions are so self-refuting that you will sound like a fool arguing them. One of my favourite examples is trying to argue “Language is meaningless”.
I think some positions, such as logical nihilism and radical skepticism, are really weak; yet they do have defenders. I can’t just shut my eyes and pretend there aren’t people trying to argue for them. And even if they don’t convince me of their position in the slightest, they still may say something interesting.
By the way, wrong thread. Do Truths Exist in a Hierarchy? - #88 by Keep_Relentless