One approach to generating high quality ideas is a "yes, and" stance.

This helps find and incorporate disconfirming evidence, and do it in a collaborative, bridge-building way, where the other party feels seen and welcomed.

But a "no, but" stance can also identify good ideas in practice.

A "no, but" stance throws the conversant off their balance.

They are unable to just rehash cached answers that have worked before.

That requires them to rederive their beliefs in new ways… possibly in stronger ways than before.

You can then absorb those stronger versions of the ideas.

Which one you deploy comes down to what personality type you have.

Your personality type kind of backs you into a corner of plausible moves that are open to you to use.

For example, some people have an almost pathological need to not be disliked.

This pushes them into a corner where the only move is "yes, and," and given that they're there, they have to learn how to hone that into a highly effective tool.

Another thing this kind of personality might do: lean on abstract arguments.

Part of this is because the arguments are less likely to be read as aggressive or presumptuous to a person they're conversing with.

And part of it is they're deeply fearful of someone saying, "no, you're wrong."

Using abstract arguments is partially a defense mechanism, but also allows them to make arguments that can plausibly apply in a larger set of circumstances.

A "no, but" person might start off with a more introverted and more closed personality corner, but once there, they can hone a highly effective tool in that corner.

Your personality gives you lemons? Make lemonade!

Steelman the situation you are forced into to at least use it to its best effect.