We humans know that there are arguments out there that can change our values, but instead of hardening our minds against them, some of us actually try to have such arguments sent to us.

In the deontological view of values this is puzzling, but in the consequentialist view it isn't: we welcome arguments that can change our instrumental values, but not our terminal values (A.K.A. happiness/pleasure/eudaimonia/etc.). In fact I contend that it doesn't even make sense to talk about changing our terminal values.