This is fascinating to think through, because I find myself giving qualifying statements all the time.

I see qualifying statements as a useful tactic to try to pull people away from bias, or extreme/one-sided views. In a debate, it seems essential to establish points of agreement, and only from a common foundation can you examine the validity of claims and logical arguments from there. Playing defensively like that is likely to cause your opponent to over extend, slip up, look foolish, and be less likely to make such bold claims in the future now that they see how dumb it looks. They won't change their mind, but they might inch closer to the center (that is, if they don't double down further into bias, which unfortunately is common).

But maybe sometimes it's more important to take advantage of a sound position, destroy the argument, and take a firm stand for what's right regardless of the practical outcome of the conversation. Of course, now that I say that, I don't love the sound of it in this age of polarization.

Great post. Super important to identify this pattern and determine whether or not it indicates moral failure.