What is the difference between someone who truly discusses reason and someone who only defends their stance?

Someone who truly discusses reason: They talk about issues to get closer to the facts and clarify logic, not to prove they were right from the start. So they are willing to admit they might be uncertain and can accept being refuted. When others speak, they listen carefully to the main points, understand before responding. Even if they find out they were wrong in the end, they don’t feel ashamed; instead, they feel they’ve gained something.
Someone who only defends their stance: They already have a conclusion from the beginning; the discussion is just to win. Their opinions are tied to their “face,” and they tend to get anxious when refuted. During conversations, they don’t care much about reason; they use tactics like equivocation, shifting topics, nitpicking, or emotional appeals whenever possible. They ignore key points that don’t favor them and focus on what benefits their position. Even if they have deviated from the facts, as long as they seem to have won, that’s enough.
In the end, one is genuinely discussing issues, and the other is just debating.