Double standards and other logical fallacies

1. A true belief (or a strong theory) is arrived at by successfully addressing all questions not by successfully avoiding all questions.
2. Don’t claim you have the truth without being willing and able to prove it.
3. Don’t demand a higher standard of proof for your opponent’s doctrines than you are willing to accept for your own doctrines. Eg. you state that your opponent’s beliefs must be false because they are not explicitly stated in scripture, but you believe your own doctrines are true because you can imagine a possible interpretation for them.
4. Be intellectually honest and engage with your opponent’s viewpoints honestly to disprove them.
5. Don’t use arguments against your opponents that argue against your own position as well.
6. Don’t criticize your opponents and then refuse to accept criticism for your own position.
7. Don’t reject verses because they don’t exist in the oldest manuscripts and then ignore the oldest manuscripts when they don’t support your own doctrines.
8. “If something has simply got to be true, then conflicting evidence can easily be ignored or superficially dismissed as irrelevant. To avoid this danger, Richard Feynman emphasized that one should always be careful to record all the evidence against one's theories; indeed, one should bend over backwards to consider it, since the easiest person to fool is oneself.” — John Lennox, God's Undertaker, Has Science buried God? p. 99.
9. Don’t misrepresent evidence against your position to make it weaker. That is using a straw man argument.
10. Dismissing something is not the same thing as refuting it.

3 approaches to evidence

If I can think of any possible other explanation for my opponents interpretation, then that is preferrable to agreeing with them.

The Prejudiced Jewish Approach —“That the Old Testament Messianic prophecies speak of Jesus of Nazareth is improbable and unreasonable, therefore no text is to be received as teaching this doctrine, if it will by any possibility admit of any other construction (interpretation).”
The Prejudiced Approach — “The doctrine of the Trinity is improbable and unreasonable, therefore no text is to be received as teaching this doctrine, if it will by any possibility admit of any other construction (interpretation).” Examples of people who often exhibit this attitude are Darwinists and liberal theologians.
The Unbiased Approach — “Every passage, as read in the original, is to be taken in its plain and obvious import (meaning), in harmony with every other Scripture, and entirely irrespective of the difficulty or mysteriousness of the doctrine of the Trinity of God.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0dk6WMz6eM

In other words, the prejudiced approach would rather choose any other possible interpretation than the obvious one. If another interpretation could be even remotely plausible, then it is preferred to one that goes against their established views.