Intellectual honesty means that you can acknowledge when your own side distorts or ignores facts.
I suppose, but there are paradigmatic aspects of conflicting ideologies that cannot be resolved by facts. Liberty, i.e. voluntarily taking personal responsibility for good self-governance, may in fact fail in many instances where people simply put other interests ahead of doing what's right. That fact, however, leads liberals to submit to what they see as a necessity to regulate human behavior using external structural authority. They may have facts on their side, for the most part, but the real issue is whether to give up on liberty as a governing principle or whether to approach the task of external governance with the achievement of good self-governance by means of individual liberty as an objective.
Let's take the example of recreational drug use. Ideally, liberty would allow people to 'just say no to drugs' out of the simple awareness that dependency is too high a price to pay to indulge in pleasure. However, when people give up their liberty by submitting to addictive drug (ab)use, it becomes necessary to regulate it. Whether the goal of regulation is to manage people who aren't capable of choosing to 'just say no' on their own; or whether the goal is to induce the willpower to independently 'just say no' are two different objectives.
Drug-regulation liberals will insist that the war on drugs doesn't work and cite facts because they want to move toward the managed-addiction approach. Those who support the war on drugs, on the other hand, aren't satisfied with managing addiction, even if there are factual bases that it works. Rather, they want to deter people from (ab)using by dispensing heavier penalties that are strong enough to motivate people to fully avoid using.
Shifting the discussion to 'facts,' ends up favoring managed-addiction, because those are the people who can be studied and data collected. Everyone who exercises the liberty to just say no may be motivated to avoid using by the fear of criminal justice, social stigma, or just be afraid of addiction and being out of control of their desires; but those deterrents can't be measured as easily because they are subjective and in many cases probably subconscious.
So really the theoretical understanding of the different approaches to recreational drug regulation is more useful than focusing on 'facts,' though liberals will aggressively accuse conservatives of ignoring/denying facts and relying on 'unproven theories' because that gives the impression that their views and approaches are more valid. Common sense can tell you that being completely drug-free is better than being a managed-addict, yet liberals will use facts to spin the discourse toward denying that 'just say no' is even an option for addiction-prone people, and so they will manipulatively effectuate the belief that criminal justice, incarceration, etc. can't or shouldn't be used to induce the willful choice to avoid recreational drug use completely.
Now, if people were really honest about facts, they would admit the fact that they are simply desirous of using these pleasurable substances and they are terrified by the prospect of being arrested, fined, locked up, etc. for doing so. That desperate desire to have the freedom to use without fear of punishment is what drives their angry crusade to stop criminalization of recreational drugs, yet they will insist that they are just dispassionately basing their position on facts, because that makes their argument appear to be more reasonable than if it is just desire-driven rationalizations.
Hopefully you can see from this example how talking in terms of 'facts' actually hides the fact that 'facts' can be cited as part of an overall ideological/propaganda strategy that is not truly honest. Really it is no different from when racism used to cause people to cite 'facts' about crime, unemployment, IQ, etc. in defense of racist prejudices and discriminatory practices. To be truly honest, you have to go beyond citing facts to unpack the theoretical frameworks behind how the facts are woven together into narratives. Only then do you go beyond propagandizing to engage in real critical analysis for the sake of understanding different POVs more lucidly.