Not surprisingly there is such a thing as teaching ethics, or theology, or whatever, ethically, much of which has to do with presenting the arguments of your adversaries fairly. It is on this point that I believe churches fail too often. In many instances we don’t even present the other side, and when we do, it is often a caricature, a paper tiger to be knocked over. I'm not saying one needs to be exaustive, and there are clearly situations in which this would be ridiculous, but at the end of the day, we often don't treat our adversaries fairly.
I think the reason this happens is not entirely malicious, rather it has a lot to do with people not knowing or understanding what one’s opponent believes, which raises questions about how or why we come to believe, whatever we believe.
Think about it, why do you believe?
Ok, so you read A Case for Christ, did you read A Case for Muhammad? (not a real book)
You’re a Calvinist, as is your mother and the pastor of the church she took you to your entire life; have you read any other perspective?
What are we afraid of?
If a given belief is correct, it will stand up under the most withering examination.